Tell me, how do I go to smash-the-state.com without the Russians knowing I do it? https? But the gov't will just use https too, and they'll see it (securely). Sure, I can ssh into a shell in the US or elsewhere and fire up lynx, but only I can do that. If I give the pw to the shell out publically so that my comrades can join into the revolution, the government is gonna catch on. In one stroke they've prevented any means of anonymous mass dissemination of information. Any site the public can go to -- or any publically available information in any form -- the government can (a) see, (b) monitor.
You're right, this isn't going to stop a lot of computer crime, but I don't think it's meant to. This is the means to prevent *thought* crime, and I'm sure the government knows it.
I dunno, but I'd think it would take alot of media to hold the amount of data that goes through russia (or any other country).
Except they don't need to save ALL of it. They see too many people going to the same site, they check it for subversive material, flag it if they find it. They use keywords, flag people who say stuff or go to the sites with subversive material, flag the other sites they go to, flag whoever they talk to.. It's not all that difficult. With HTTP you can know what 3000 people are reading with just one 3k log. As much as we don't want to admit it, this/is/ a major breach of privacy, and there's no real way for most people to get around it. (sigh)
...but nobody has/uses them. If IP had been built from the ground up with a system like freenet with public key crypto this could never happen (or, it wouldn't/work/). But with straight (HTTP|SMTP), anonymity is near-impossible. Even if the Russians use encryption -- and they won't -- their government will know with whom they're communicating and when... And in most cases, that's enough to find out *what*'s being communicated. Try to go to flag.blackened.net and they'll *know* what you're thinking. Sure, it is technologically possible to get around these systems -- with (non-existent) cooperation from sites outside of Russia -- but that doesn't mean squat, because it's not PRACTICALLY possible to get people to use those technological means.
..even if nobody else uses it. Who cares? Why do Linux users need everyone else to use it too?? If people like it they'll use it, and if they don't they won't. But either way it makes no difference to me. What difference does it make to you?
Linux is getting about as much support as it needs to get. I'm more afraid of it getting *too* popular, and dominated by the shrink-wrap proprietary junk that Windows has for software. Any support Linux gets by virtue of mass popularity is going to be that kind, and that kind is worthless to me. So let 'em buy NT. They really won't know the difference anyway.
This is a matter of semantics. I think it is work. Obviously not by your definition, but work indeed.
Back on this? Well tell me, what is produced? I presented an argument against speculation being labor, and you simply ignored it. Isn't the defining trait of speculation that nothing is produced? Is theft productive labor? Is speculation any more productive than theft? If so, what is produced? (Btw, if you are saying that speculation is labor, but unproductive labor, like the labor a thief exerts when carrying TV's to his van, I have already agreed. When I say "speculation is not labor" or "theft is not labor", I probably should say, more accurately, "speculation is not productive labor" or "theft is not productive labor". But you'll know what I mean herein.)
You may not have said that the $2 million was taken out of circulation, but you did say "If VA had bought it themselves for $75, the rest of the world would not have been without $3million dollars (#153)."
Which is true. If a thief steals $3million, he may go ahead and make trades for it, and at some point in the future have instead $3million worth of goods and services, but those are still taken out of the world and sucked into the void that is his non-productive self. That's what zero-sum is. And for reasons stated countless times previously, speculation is exactly as zero-sum as theft. If, on the other hand, he produces $3million worth of e.g. candy bars, and then trades them for $3million, the rest of the world is NOT $3million poorer -- it is even -- and at the same time he is $3million richer. That is the difference between zero-sum and production.
Whether or not theft is zero-sum is not germaine to this argu, err, discussion. Speculation != theft.
Whether or not SPECULATION is zero-sum seems to be important to you. I have shown that it is zero-sum. Your denial of this at this point is astounding. It seems that, to you, nothing is zero-sum, not even theft. (!?)
OK means, well, just that. I have never had an indepth discussion about what OK means, so I never really gave it much thought. (It reminds me of President Clinton's evasiveness and asking what is is).
I HAVE to know what you mean. I gave three possibilities of what you could mean, with differing potential responses on my part to each. Surely you see the need for me to know what you mean by a word. It's like the word "good", in that something can be good on more than one level, and can be good on some level and bad on another at the same time. (By the way, when Clinton asked what was meant by "is", I believe he intended to discover whether it referred to the current tense, as would be proper English, or the past tense, as was intuitive in context.)
OK means [...] within his rights.
Then I've never contested that it was "OK".
I did support unions.
Well, with that definition of "OK", supporting unions would not be inconsistent on your part.
When the cost of the employees goes up, the cost of the car goes up so the selling price goes up so I need more money to buy it, so I want more money, so my product's price goes up... It's a vicious cycle.
Perhaps the way to end the cycle is to not let any of the money generated through the production of cars go to anyone who doesn't produce them (ie the so-called "owners" of the factories). (ie, make labor the only currency -- you would then, in order to obtain a car, work exactly as much as a factory worker must work in order to produce a single car (or 1/100 as much as 10 factory workers work to produce 10 cars -- you get the idea).)
{ac} you have not shown otherwise, and have apparently conceded, that speculation is not labor {diggs} Nope. No concession from here.
WHAT IS PRODUCED??
Speculation is not harmful to "the working class." When I make contributions to my 401K account, I am speculating.
Of course that is harmful, though harmful on a very small scale. It would be much to your benefit if nobody could make money except from trading their labor for another's labor. You may take some excess labor in interest, but trade your labor for far less than its worth to allow some capitalist to take far more excess labor from you than you take - so you come out below even. If you steal less than is stolen from you you don't create an overall harm to society, but that's not to say theft isn't harmful; and so it is with profit. You do agree that a person who consumes labor without producing it, or consumes more than he produces, would have a negative effect on society and on those who do produce, right?
I don't know. Up is down, big is small... What can you say to a person who just won't accept simple logic and fact? How can you possibly say that speculation is productive (ie not zero-sum)? What does it mean to be zero-sum? Can't you answer the question, of what is produced? You won't even admit that theft is zero-sum... Well if theft is productive, what is produced?
Supporters of capitalism, at least the educated ones (e.g. economists), don't support it on the basis that speculation, profit, interest or etc are labor. There is capitalism, and the labor theory of value (among others), and the people who know what those are agree that they are not the same thing. You're saying capitalism *IS* the labor theory of value, and I just don't know what to say. It is truly as if you were to say big is small, right is left, etc. It's like arguing with a creationist.. Can't you even admit that theft is not productive?
(NOTE: I've asked "what is produced?" about five times here, as well as about five times previously to this post. The question is meant to be answered as to speculation in general, not DNS speculation, because your (IMHO absurd) claim that the DNS name does not exist previously to its being registered would make mean it is not speculation. But you have made claims regarding speculation in general, and you must back those up or abandon them. Reverting to the (IMHO mistaken, but unimportant) idea that DNS speculation is not really speculation ignores the larger issue in favor of a detail that is irrelevant until the larger is settled. What is produced through the speculation of (e.g.) Hershey bars?)
Your idea that "making money without having to work" is an odious thing. As I replied then, and as I believe now, that is wrong.
Well I'm glad, at least, that you finally admit speculation is not labor. It was, IMHO, your previous insistence on the opposite that caused this discussion to be drawn out so long without advancing. But oh well, that's past..
You tried to convince me that what's his name getting a couple million dollars took those millions out of circulation.
That's not at all what I said. A thief who steals money doesn't take it out of circulation forever, he simply takes it without immediately putting something into circulation in its place. That's what zero-sum means. That's why theft is zero-sum. You agree that theft is zero-sum? If the thief continues to trade his plunder, thus putting it into circulation, he will [it is supposed] be taking something equal out of circulation at that time, thus still leaving the world in a zero-sum state. Only labor is not zero-sum. If speculation, interest, profit, charity, and rent are not zero-sum, then theft is not zero-sum. Whether or not you support them, profit and speculation *are* zero-sum, and it has nothing to do with whether they are circulated.
It doesn't matter if your definition of "OK" is different than mine.
Of course it doesn't. All that's important is that I know what it is you mean by the word "OK". But I don't, so you might as well be speaking Greek. (For instance, you might mean "just" or "fair", in which case I disagree. You might mean "within his rights", in which case I agree. You might mean "not a problem" or "not meriting a solution", in which case I disagree, etc.)
It is absolutely OK for someone to ask you to work in deplorable conditions for only a tiny compensation. You can say NO.
Of course you can. You can say "NO", and starve. But here the definition of "OK" becomes the most important, as I ask you (perhaps not expecting an answer), do you support unions? (It seems, for the sake of consistency, you must this question in the negative - after all, offering the job is "OK".) But OK or not, it's certainly exploitive, isn't it? I mean, the workers *are* given a choice, if they do not want to be exploited, to instead starve themselves and their families to death, but that makes it no less exploitive, does it?
If the conditions are that freakin' bad - Duh! - quit.
Even if I could quit without starving, how would it follow that I shouldn't oppose the person who created those conditions? (Besides, if you don't like being a slave, KILL YOURSELF. Duh! It's not possible to quit and live.)
In summary, you have not shown otherwise, and have apparently conceded, that speculation is not labor, and that speculation is zero-sum (and thus exploitive). You have made the claim that people have a right to speculate, and I have not contested it. On the basis of the former, though, I have shown that speculation is harmful to the working class, and that the working class should oppose it, and work towards ending it. Any person who becomes wealthy through speculation is an enemy of the working class, regardless of whether he is within his rights or whether his behavior is "OK".
(I posted this because it seemed to me you might not entirely understand my position, and also because of your implied attack on unions which I felt superficial and fallacious. If you read this and do not feel the need to respond, please acknowledge that you've read it, just to ease my curiosity. Thanks.)
Unfortunately the very concept of "intellectual property" is the negation of any right to personal freedom to use ones property. You can't build a patented device with your own materials, you can't watch DVD's with your own materials, you can't put Windows on both of your own computers, etc, because the INFORMATION you want to use with your materials has been outlawed. Besides, there are also laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Where'd you get this notion that you had any legal right to use your own property?
IANAL, but I think it's common knowledge that it's completely legal to publish a trade secret, unless you've obtained it by illegal means (which the DeCSS creators, AFAIK, did not).
A judge's LEGAL responsibility is the above. A judge's MORAL responsibility is not to harm others. Like I said, in order to become a judge, one has to put the former in authority over the latter, thus becoming amoral.
Well damn straight it SHOULDN'T be. Why would it be? Manufacturing your own DVD player is illegal - surely manufacturing a VCR is no different! (Well that's in the eyes of eyes of common sense, not the law or legislature.)
Where have I heard that before. It is every individual's responsibility at all times in all situations to decide whether his or her actions are moral. (OK, I know we can't honestly expect judges to stop enforcing laws only because they're wrong - a person has to be amoral to get a job as a judge in the first place. Consider this a rant.)
"DeCSS is NOT for COPYING, it's for DECODING (and thus playing)". I can't understand how that simple fact could not have penetrated the skull of Kaplan by now, but I suspect if it hasn't yet it never will. (sigh)
My point was that DNS speculation is true speculation. You agree, so forget it.
Again, I must disagree. I will try to define intellectual property (or at least what I think it is). It is words and notes put together to make a song. It is words strung together to make a book or a magazine article. It is a painting.
That is not what "intellectual property" means. "Intellectual property" means privilege to exclusive use over a certain piece of information. Not to be payed for a magazine article, but to restrict others' use over the information in the article (and be payed to lift the restriction). In other words, it is the scarcity economics of property applied to information through a forced government monopoly, even though information is not a scarce resource. That is what people mean by "intellectual property", in a legal sense, in a sense that one might "oppose" it.
Some people refer to information as "intellectual property", but that is bad practice. Information is not "intellectual property" unless someone has been granted government privilege over it.
You know what? I think it comes down to this one question. Is it OK for the fellow to register the DNS name and then sale it to someone else?
You cloud the question with such vague language as "OK". I might agree with you, depending on how you define "OK", but it's sure that speculation (DNS or otherwise) is exploitive, either way. Is it OK for me to ask someone to work in my factory under sub-humane conditions, when he has the option of simply choosing not to work in such a factory if he does not like those conditions? Again, it depends on what is meant by "OK". (And, even rephrased, that is not the question the discussion comes down to, but the question the discussion seeks to answer. Like the factory question, it is hardly so simple as one might imagine.)
(ac) I hold only that creation of "intellectual property" should be payed, like any other labor, indeed like most forms of intellectual labor, exactly once, in whatever amount it is able to secure through free trade.)
(diggs) You had me ready to insert a big, bold Agreed! here. Then I re-read the exactly once part and you lost me. I guess you could say that, considering that a contract that calls for payments over many years could be considered being paid "exactly once", but I get antsy when "always", "never" and "exactly" get thrown around.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. A person can be payed in any way to create information, but there is no need to pay to USE information that one already has, and that any attempt to force such payment is simple extortion.
My examples could have been better, but I thought that using someone that made money from a few words strung together in some DNS record was roughly equivalent to a novel writer putting common words together and making money from that effort.
In one sense it is the same: in that the novel writer would claim ownership, or privilege to exclusive use over those words, you are correct (he could not). In another sense it is different: that the DNS speculator has generated any productive labor, you are incorrect (he has not). The speculator does exert some labor, but it is an unproductive labor, one he could not sell, or not sell at anywhere near the scale he now sells.
The creation of information will be payed whether or not the government can offer an exclusive monopoly over it, because it is productive labor. We know this for two reasons: first because it is intuitive, as clearly creation of information is valuable; and second because historically it is true, when there has been no "intellectual property" intellectual labor has still been payed (and similarly, even currently there is intellectual labor that produces information that cannot be made into "intellectual property", and it is still payed).
Speculation [of land, as an example] is not payable without monopoly privilege, for the same two reasons: first that it is intuitive, that nobody would pay anyone anything significant to speculate for him if he had the option of speculating himself instead; second that historically nobody did the above, e.g. in the US land rush, nobody bought land from speculators when there was equivalent land next to it to speculate. (There are objections to this that you could make, but please think long about them before you reply, because they all fail under scrutiny, and I will show why. You know as well as I that speculation is not productive labor, in fact that the defining trait of speculation is that the product exists beforehand and is not improved before resale.)
By the way, I responded below in reference to the question of what it means to work or labor (in case you had not noticed).
A DNS name doesn't exist, and treating it like an object does not make sense. If your point is only to show that DNS speculation is not deserving of that title, "speculation", I find this discussion silly. It seems obvious to me that all the essential characteristics of speculation exist in DNS speculation, and that is why it has been so named. But if you agree that speculation is unjust and only disagree in the above, although I feel you are mistaken, I also feel the point is minor and that we are largely of the same mind.
If your argument is instead that "intellectual property" (so-called) is the equivalent of speculation, and therefore speculation and "intellectual property" must be either both just or unjust together, I commend your reasoning. However, the conclusion from there should be that "intellectual property" is unjust, not that speculation is just, for reasons stated previously. (If you believe that opposition to "intellectual property" is equivalent to the position that intellectual effort is not labor, you are simply mistaken. I hold only that creation of "intellectual property" should be payed, like any other labor, indeed like most forms of intellectual labor, exactly once, in whatever amount it is able to secure through free trade.)
Diggs, please, I have three times repeated that I consider intellectual effort as valid and deserving of the terms "labor" and "work" as manual labor. Why do you continue to hammer in a point I have never once contested?
Buying something and selling it as-bought is NOT LABOR. It's not manual labor, NOR IS IT INTELLECTUAL LABOR.
Would that exploitation include the fact that he is helping to keep those workers employed? He is helping to keep them fed, clothed and sheltered.
Is the lord any less an exploiter for feeding his serfs? Dead slaves produce no labor. But though the lord or master or investor will pay wages (in whatever amount will gain him the most profit) to those he exploits, the masters are no less exploiters unless they take only the product of their own labor, and no one else's (at which point, they cease to be investors, or masters, or lords, but are instead workers).
When a farmer labors, the product of that labor is his harvest. When an author labors, the product of that labor is his text. To what end is investing directed? To what end, besides being granted (by government) title over the product of another's labor? WHAT IS PRODUCED?
(Now I must again point out, that there is some effort involved in investing, but it is much like the effort involved in burglary and maraudary, in that the effort itself does not bring about the product, but merely takes it from the hands of another whose effort actually produced it. You must show some product that is created through the investor's effort; it must be different than the lord producing (a word I use in disgust, in this context) the harvest of his serfs through the effort of oppressing their ability to flee and to take [most of] their own harvest.)
That's seems to be another trend - wherever there is controversy, all sides are equal, and all arguments to one are close-minded bigotry. Still, those things are generally not the important ones; society has made sure to keep you thinking in line where it counts. Islam may be as valid as Christianity, but not (the significantly different) atheism. Democrat or Republican or sometimes even Libertarian, but anarcho-syndicalism? Yeah right, you nihilistic terrorist! Taxes aren't theft, the government is different from the mafia, arresting prostitutes isn't kidnapping, casual sex is wrong or bad, let alone that among young children, "parent's rights", etc. There are countless things the majority is simply unwilling to question under any circumstance.
The Closing of the American Mind looks interesting.. I'll check it out, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
That problem applies to all governments, not just communist ones. The goal of every government is self-preservation.
Tell me, how do I go to smash-the-state.com without the Russians knowing I do it? https? But the gov't will just use https too, and they'll see it (securely). Sure, I can ssh into a shell in the US or elsewhere and fire up lynx, but only I can do that. If I give the pw to the shell out publically so that my comrades can join into the revolution, the government is gonna catch on. In one stroke they've prevented any means of anonymous mass dissemination of information. Any site the public can go to -- or any publically available information in any form -- the government can (a) see, (b) monitor.
You're right, this isn't going to stop a lot of computer crime, but I don't think it's meant to. This is the means to prevent *thought* crime, and I'm sure the government knows it.
Except they don't need to save ALL of it. They see too many people going to the same site, they check it for subversive material, flag it if they find it. They use keywords, flag people who say stuff or go to the sites with subversive material, flag the other sites they go to, flag whoever they talk to.. It's not all that difficult. With HTTP you can know what 3000 people are reading with just one 3k log. As much as we don't want to admit it, this /is/ a major breach of privacy, and there's no real way for most people to get around it. (sigh)
...but nobody has/uses them. If IP had been built from the ground up with a system like freenet with public key crypto this could never happen (or, it wouldn't /work/). But with straight (HTTP|SMTP), anonymity is near-impossible. Even if the Russians use encryption -- and they won't -- their government will know with whom they're communicating and when... And in most cases, that's enough to find out *what*'s being communicated. Try to go to flag.blackened.net and they'll *know* what you're thinking. Sure, it is technologically possible to get around these systems -- with (non-existent) cooperation from sites outside of Russia -- but that doesn't mean squat, because it's not PRACTICALLY possible to get people to use those technological means.
..even if nobody else uses it. Who cares? Why do Linux users need everyone else to use it too?? If people like it they'll use it, and if they don't they won't. But either way it makes no difference to me. What difference does it make to you?
Linux is getting about as much support as it needs to get. I'm more afraid of it getting *too* popular, and dominated by the shrink-wrap proprietary junk that Windows has for software. Any support Linux gets by virtue of mass popularity is going to be that kind, and that kind is worthless to me. So let 'em buy NT. They really won't know the difference anyway.
This is a matter of semantics. I think it is work. Obviously not by your definition, but work indeed.
Back on this? Well tell me, what is produced? I presented an argument against speculation being labor, and you simply ignored it. Isn't the defining trait of speculation that nothing is produced? Is theft productive labor? Is speculation any more productive than theft? If so, what is produced? (Btw, if you are saying that speculation is labor, but unproductive labor, like the labor a thief exerts when carrying TV's to his van, I have already agreed. When I say "speculation is not labor" or "theft is not labor", I probably should say, more accurately, "speculation is not productive labor" or "theft is not productive labor". But you'll know what I mean herein.)
You may not have said that the $2 million was taken out of circulation, but you did say "If VA had bought it themselves for $75, the rest of the world would not have been without $3million dollars (#153)."
Which is true. If a thief steals $3million, he may go ahead and make trades for it, and at some point in the future have instead $3million worth of goods and services, but those are still taken out of the world and sucked into the void that is his non-productive self. That's what zero-sum is. And for reasons stated countless times previously, speculation is exactly as zero-sum as theft. If, on the other hand, he produces $3million worth of e.g. candy bars, and then trades them for $3million, the rest of the world is NOT $3million poorer -- it is even -- and at the same time he is $3million richer. That is the difference between zero-sum and production.
Whether or not theft is zero-sum is not germaine to this argu, err, discussion. Speculation != theft.
Whether or not SPECULATION is zero-sum seems to be important to you. I have shown that it is zero-sum. Your denial of this at this point is astounding. It seems that, to you, nothing is zero-sum, not even theft. (!?)
OK means, well, just that. I have never had an indepth discussion about what OK means, so I never really gave it much thought. (It reminds me of President Clinton's evasiveness and asking what is is).
I HAVE to know what you mean. I gave three possibilities of what you could mean, with differing potential responses on my part to each. Surely you see the need for me to know what you mean by a word. It's like the word "good", in that something can be good on more than one level, and can be good on some level and bad on another at the same time. (By the way, when Clinton asked what was meant by "is", I believe he intended to discover whether it referred to the current tense, as would be proper English, or the past tense, as was intuitive in context.)
OK means [...] within his rights.
Then I've never contested that it was "OK".
I did support unions.
Well, with that definition of "OK", supporting unions would not be inconsistent on your part.
When the cost of the employees goes up, the cost of the car goes up so the selling price goes up so I need more money to buy it, so I want more money, so my product's price goes up... It's a vicious cycle.
Perhaps the way to end the cycle is to not let any of the money generated through the production of cars go to anyone who doesn't produce them (ie the so-called "owners" of the factories). (ie, make labor the only currency -- you would then, in order to obtain a car, work exactly as much as a factory worker must work in order to produce a single car (or 1/100 as much as 10 factory workers work to produce 10 cars -- you get the idea).)
{ac} you have not shown otherwise, and have apparently conceded, that speculation is not labor
{diggs} Nope. No concession from here.
WHAT IS PRODUCED??
Speculation is not harmful to "the working class." When I make contributions to my 401K account, I am speculating.
Of course that is harmful, though harmful on a very small scale. It would be much to your benefit if nobody could make money except from trading their labor for another's labor. You may take some excess labor in interest, but trade your labor for far less than its worth to allow some capitalist to take far more excess labor from you than you take - so you come out below even. If you steal less than is stolen from you you don't create an overall harm to society, but that's not to say theft isn't harmful; and so it is with profit. You do agree that a person who consumes labor without producing it, or consumes more than he produces, would have a negative effect on society and on those who do produce, right?
I don't know. Up is down, big is small... What can you say to a person who just won't accept simple logic and fact? How can you possibly say that speculation is productive (ie not zero-sum)? What does it mean to be zero-sum? Can't you answer the question, of what is produced? You won't even admit that theft is zero-sum... Well if theft is productive, what is produced?
Supporters of capitalism, at least the educated ones (e.g. economists), don't support it on the basis that speculation, profit, interest or etc are labor. There is capitalism, and the labor theory of value (among others), and the people who know what those are agree that they are not the same thing. You're saying capitalism *IS* the labor theory of value, and I just don't know what to say. It is truly as if you were to say big is small, right is left, etc. It's like arguing with a creationist.. Can't you even admit that theft is not productive?
(NOTE: I've asked "what is produced?" about five times here, as well as about five times previously to this post. The question is meant to be answered as to speculation in general, not DNS speculation, because your (IMHO absurd) claim that the DNS name does not exist previously to its being registered would make mean it is not speculation. But you have made claims regarding speculation in general, and you must back those up or abandon them. Reverting to the (IMHO mistaken, but unimportant) idea that DNS speculation is not really speculation ignores the larger issue in favor of a detail that is irrelevant until the larger is settled. What is produced through the speculation of (e.g.) Hershey bars?)
Your idea that "making money without having to work" is an odious thing. As I replied then, and as I believe now, that is wrong.
Well I'm glad, at least, that you finally admit speculation is not labor. It was, IMHO, your previous insistence on the opposite that caused this discussion to be drawn out so long without advancing. But oh well, that's past..
You tried to convince me that what's his name getting a couple million dollars took those millions out of circulation.
That's not at all what I said. A thief who steals money doesn't take it out of circulation forever, he simply takes it without immediately putting something into circulation in its place. That's what zero-sum means. That's why theft is zero-sum. You agree that theft is zero-sum? If the thief continues to trade his plunder, thus putting it into circulation, he will [it is supposed] be taking something equal out of circulation at that time, thus still leaving the world in a zero-sum state. Only labor is not zero-sum. If speculation, interest, profit, charity, and rent are not zero-sum, then theft is not zero-sum. Whether or not you support them, profit and speculation *are* zero-sum, and it has nothing to do with whether they are circulated.
It doesn't matter if your definition of "OK" is different than mine.
Of course it doesn't. All that's important is that I know what it is you mean by the word "OK". But I don't, so you might as well be speaking Greek. (For instance, you might mean "just" or "fair", in which case I disagree. You might mean "within his rights", in which case I agree. You might mean "not a problem" or "not meriting a solution", in which case I disagree, etc.)
It is absolutely OK for someone to ask you to work in deplorable conditions for only a tiny compensation. You can say NO.
Of course you can. You can say "NO", and starve. But here the definition of "OK" becomes the most important, as I ask you (perhaps not expecting an answer), do you support unions? (It seems, for the sake of consistency, you must this question in the negative - after all, offering the job is "OK".) But OK or not, it's certainly exploitive, isn't it? I mean, the workers *are* given a choice, if they do not want to be exploited, to instead starve themselves and their families to death, but that makes it no less exploitive, does it?
If the conditions are that freakin' bad - Duh! - quit.
Even if I could quit without starving, how would it follow that I shouldn't oppose the person who created those conditions? (Besides, if you don't like being a slave, KILL YOURSELF. Duh! It's not possible to quit and live.)
In summary, you have not shown otherwise, and have apparently conceded, that speculation is not labor, and that speculation is zero-sum (and thus exploitive). You have made the claim that people have a right to speculate, and I have not contested it. On the basis of the former, though, I have shown that speculation is harmful to the working class, and that the working class should oppose it, and work towards ending it. Any person who becomes wealthy through speculation is an enemy of the working class, regardless of whether he is within his rights or whether his behavior is "OK".
(I posted this because it seemed to me you might not entirely understand my position, and also because of your implied attack on unions which I felt superficial and fallacious. If you read this and do not feel the need to respond, please acknowledge that you've read it, just to ease my curiosity. Thanks.)
Unfortunately the very concept of "intellectual property" is the negation of any right to personal freedom to use ones property. You can't build a patented device with your own materials, you can't watch DVD's with your own materials, you can't put Windows on both of your own computers, etc, because the INFORMATION you want to use with your materials has been outlawed. Besides, there are also laws against drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Where'd you get this notion that you had any legal right to use your own property?
Millions for defense, not a cent for tribute! Give no quarter!!
IANAL, but I think it's common knowledge that it's completely legal to publish a trade secret, unless you've obtained it by illegal means (which the DeCSS creators, AFAIK, did not).
nt=no text
A judge's LEGAL responsibility is the above. A judge's MORAL responsibility is not to harm others. Like I said, in order to become a judge, one has to put the former in authority over the latter, thus becoming amoral.
Well damn straight it SHOULDN'T be. Why would it be? Manufacturing your own DVD player is illegal - surely manufacturing a VCR is no different! (Well that's in the eyes of eyes of common sense, not the law or legislature.)
Now they're allowed to control access to copyrighted works THAT HAVE BEEN PAYED FOR?
!
No, he's going to make MANUFACTURING YOUR OWN VCR (single cassette or otherwise) illegal. In fact, it probably already is.
Where have I heard that before. It is every individual's responsibility at all times in all situations to decide whether his or her actions are moral. (OK, I know we can't honestly expect judges to stop enforcing laws only because they're wrong - a person has to be amoral to get a job as a judge in the first place. Consider this a rant.)
"DeCSS is NOT for COPYING, it's for DECODING (and thus playing)". I can't understand how that simple fact could not have penetrated the skull of Kaplan by now, but I suspect if it hasn't yet it never will. (sigh)
Banner ads? Pfft. I use junkbuster. Haven't seen a banner on slashdot or freshmeat in months.
The current version of wordperfect for linux is native.
A DNS name must exist.
My point was that DNS speculation is true speculation. You agree, so forget it.
Again, I must disagree. I will try to define intellectual property (or at least what I think it is). It is words and notes put together to make a song. It is words strung together to make a book or a magazine article. It is a painting.
That is not what "intellectual property" means. "Intellectual property" means privilege to exclusive use over a certain piece of information. Not to be payed for a magazine article, but to restrict others' use over the information in the article (and be payed to lift the restriction). In other words, it is the scarcity economics of property applied to information through a forced government monopoly, even though information is not a scarce resource. That is what people mean by "intellectual property", in a legal sense, in a sense that one might "oppose" it.
Some people refer to information as "intellectual property", but that is bad practice. Information is not "intellectual property" unless someone has been granted government privilege over it.
You know what? I think it comes down to this one question. Is it OK for the fellow to register the DNS name and then sale it to someone else?
You cloud the question with such vague language as "OK". I might agree with you, depending on how you define "OK", but it's sure that speculation (DNS or otherwise) is exploitive, either way. Is it OK for me to ask someone to work in my factory under sub-humane conditions, when he has the option of simply choosing not to work in such a factory if he does not like those conditions? Again, it depends on what is meant by "OK". (And, even rephrased, that is not the question the discussion comes down to, but the question the discussion seeks to answer. Like the factory question, it is hardly so simple as one might imagine.)
(ac) I hold only that creation of "intellectual property" should be payed, like any other labor, indeed like most forms of intellectual labor, exactly once, in whatever amount it is able to secure through free trade.)
(diggs) You had me ready to insert a big, bold Agreed! here. Then I re-read the exactly once part and you lost me. I guess you could say that, considering that a contract that calls for payments over many years could be considered being paid "exactly once", but I get antsy when "always", "never" and "exactly" get thrown around.
Perhaps I was not clear enough. A person can be payed in any way to create information, but there is no need to pay to USE information that one already has, and that any attempt to force such payment is simple extortion.
My examples could have been better, but I thought that using someone that made money from a few words strung together in some DNS record was roughly equivalent to a novel writer putting common words together and making money from that effort.
In one sense it is the same: in that the novel writer would claim ownership, or privilege to exclusive use over those words, you are correct (he could not). In another sense it is different: that the DNS speculator has generated any productive labor, you are incorrect (he has not). The speculator does exert some labor, but it is an unproductive labor, one he could not sell, or not sell at anywhere near the scale he now sells.
The creation of information will be payed whether or not the government can offer an exclusive monopoly over it, because it is productive labor. We know this for two reasons: first because it is intuitive, as clearly creation of information is valuable; and second because historically it is true, when there has been no "intellectual property" intellectual labor has still been payed (and similarly, even currently there is intellectual labor that produces information that cannot be made into "intellectual property", and it is still payed).
Speculation [of land, as an example] is not payable without monopoly privilege, for the same two reasons: first that it is intuitive, that nobody would pay anyone anything significant to speculate for him if he had the option of speculating himself instead; second that historically nobody did the above, e.g. in the US land rush, nobody bought land from speculators when there was equivalent land next to it to speculate. (There are objections to this that you could make, but please think long about them before you reply, because they all fail under scrutiny, and I will show why. You know as well as I that speculation is not productive labor, in fact that the defining trait of speculation is that the product exists beforehand and is not improved before resale.)
By the way, I responded below in reference to the question of what it means to work or labor (in case you had not noticed).
A DNS name doesn't exist, and treating it like an object does not make sense. If your point is only to show that DNS speculation is not deserving of that title, "speculation", I find this discussion silly. It seems obvious to me that all the essential characteristics of speculation exist in DNS speculation, and that is why it has been so named. But if you agree that speculation is unjust and only disagree in the above, although I feel you are mistaken, I also feel the point is minor and that we are largely of the same mind.
If your argument is instead that "intellectual property" (so-called) is the equivalent of speculation, and therefore speculation and "intellectual property" must be either both just or unjust together, I commend your reasoning. However, the conclusion from there should be that "intellectual property" is unjust, not that speculation is just, for reasons stated previously. (If you believe that opposition to "intellectual property" is equivalent to the position that intellectual effort is not labor, you are simply mistaken. I hold only that creation of "intellectual property" should be payed, like any other labor, indeed like most forms of intellectual labor, exactly once, in whatever amount it is able to secure through free trade.)
don't require Windows? (Just wondering. Would like to try one of these things out).
Diggs, please, I have three times repeated that I consider intellectual effort as valid and deserving of the terms "labor" and "work" as manual labor. Why do you continue to hammer in a point I have never once contested?
Buying something and selling it as-bought is NOT LABOR. It's not manual labor, NOR IS IT INTELLECTUAL LABOR.
Would that exploitation include the fact that he is helping to keep those workers employed? He is helping to keep them fed, clothed and sheltered.
Is the lord any less an exploiter for feeding his serfs? Dead slaves produce no labor. But though the lord or master or investor will pay wages (in whatever amount will gain him the most profit) to those he exploits, the masters are no less exploiters unless they take only the product of their own labor, and no one else's (at which point, they cease to be investors, or masters, or lords, but are instead workers).
When a farmer labors, the product of that labor is his harvest. When an author labors, the product of that labor is his text. To what end is investing directed? To what end, besides being granted (by government) title over the product of another's labor? WHAT IS PRODUCED?
(Now I must again point out, that there is some effort involved in investing, but it is much like the effort involved in burglary and maraudary, in that the effort itself does not bring about the product, but merely takes it from the hands of another whose effort actually produced it. You must show some product that is created through the investor's effort; it must be different than the lord producing (a word I use in disgust, in this context) the harvest of his serfs through the effort of oppressing their ability to flee and to take [most of] their own harvest.)
That's seems to be another trend - wherever there is controversy, all sides are equal, and all arguments to one are close-minded bigotry. Still, those things are generally not the important ones; society has made sure to keep you thinking in line where it counts. Islam may be as valid as Christianity, but not (the significantly different) atheism. Democrat or Republican or sometimes even Libertarian, but anarcho-syndicalism? Yeah right, you nihilistic terrorist! Taxes aren't theft, the government is different from the mafia, arresting prostitutes isn't kidnapping, casual sex is wrong or bad, let alone that among young children, "parent's rights", etc. There are countless things the majority is simply unwilling to question under any circumstance.
The Closing of the American Mind looks interesting.. I'll check it out, thanks.
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/... I've been watching this a little while, and it looks VERY interesting, IMHO.