I haven't read Clarke this decade, but I think 'The City and the Stars' might be somewhat closer to a description of "a future in which nobody really understood how anything works."
I'm deeply impressed by your geek credentials. What sorts of things do you get into these days?
I have to assume you only read half my comment. You've certainly proved my point about ignoring the issue of the militia, but you should probably note that suggesting that the military be disbanded is inconsistent with your last sentence. Also, whatever your opinions are about professional soldiers, [1] we do have them, and [2] it is hopefully not controversial to suggest that trained professionals will outperform amateurs. It should be especially uncontroversial given the events of 1814, but there are a number of examples throughout history to suggest that an effective fighting force is not a thing of improvisation.
Generally, I think the idea of defending a country with a militia is probably not optimal, and if there is going to be some country with the ability to project force around the globe, I'd rather it be this one. I'm completely fine with people arguing otherwise, and I could even find some arguments for that position myself. What I don't particularly agree with is doing an end-run around "shall not be infringed". Since that is liable to be a point of common ground, maybe you should find some more intelligent reply to my post.
a significant portion of Equifax Management are utterly incompetent and basically allowed one of the worst data breaches in history to happen on their watch... in which case we can only hope that shareholder lawsuits will follow.
We were intended to have a militia as opposed to a standing army. We re-thought that idea after the militia failed to prevent the Capitol from being burned, but did not revise the Constitution. One of the problems with starting the first modern democracy was that we didn't know what that would look like, and the Founders had somewhat romantic ideals there. It was envisioned that we would be a nation of citizen-farmers, self-sufficient men defending their own soil. This is still a popular idea, but in practice not everyone is capable or interested in living off their own land, and there isn't really a good substitute for the professional soldier. The consequences of 1814 seem to have been the 2nd Amendment dying the death of a thousand cuts, and the creation of the most powerful military in history.
Supporters of the 2nd Amendment tend to ignore these inconsistencies. I think we should try to resolve them. Either "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted more literally, and the military disbanded, or we should revise the Constitution to reflect the current state of affairs.
So that some people thrive in a negative environment means we don't have to do anything about the negative environment? It's cute how you dress up your racist attitudes, but rather transparent.
32-bit vs 64-bit is not likely to be noticeable unless the processor does not support x86-64. If the processor does support 64-bit memory addressing, then I would probably consider it misguided to install a 32-bit OS, particularly in light of these kind of compatibility issues.
I'm all for a people's right to self-determination. Strangely, that's not what I hear from the protesters. The problem today is the same problem of 1898 -- yes, Hawaiians are culturally distinct from the mainland, but the economic ties are vital to their community in a fairly literal sense. Hawaiians don't like haoles, but apparently they're willing to hold their noses and take their money.
If Hawaii wants to leave the US, that's fine. We can drop them and let PR be a state, and not have to change the flag. This would be a complete economic disaster for the islands, but the same might be said of the former American colonies cutting political ties with Great Britain. If Hawaiians are saying, "give us liberty or give us death," by all means let them be liberated. What I'm not so sympathetic to is, "give us arbitrary and unlimited economic concessions for all time, or we'll stage protests."
He said a rational debate, not a parade of strawmen. If you're not willing to assume good faith, then you're right, you're not going to have any kind of discussion.
So you're saying that institutional racism doesn't exist, or that it's okay because no one is "trying" to be racist?
It must be acknowledged that "micro-aggression" is an extremely stupid word. However, if you don't think it refers to a real phenomenon, we can only ascribe that to inexperience.
We have to thank you for including "black people are lazy" in your list there. It certainly lets us know where you stand.
I'm really not sure how you can equate someone deciding that your commentary is valueless to oppression. An extreme emotional reaction, compounded with a non sequitur. You're really an intellectual tragedy, aren't you?
I've been reading your posts here for something like the last ten years. You rarely rise above the noise floor. What you're posting lately is not even intended to be discourse. This forum would be improved by your absence.
Is there something we can do to get you to fuck off in some sort of permanent sense? Your comments are consistently rude, uninformative, and humorless.
This is sentiment that I would broadly agree with. I don't dispute the usefulness of Bash as a command language, but scripting is not where it excels. Arrays are painful, conditionals are an external command, and functions are limited to positional parameters. Even parsing command-line options is ugly. Where Bash shines is the ten-lines-or-less script, the glue code that marshals other commands, or transforms output into another input. It also is extremely well suited to processing structured or semi-structured text; the things that one can do with parameter expansion and variable access are impressive. A friend recently confessed to me that they had done all of the research for their doctoral thesis in epigenetics using Bash, and once I recovered from the shock it made a great deal of sense: what else is genetic data but a bunch of text strings?
I do consider Bash and the shell to be essential knowledge for the programmer; that's why I wrote a book about it. However, outside of a few very narrow use cases, there are better options for scripting languages.
I did figure that you were using Adobe AIR there, but I suppose I had thought that it was also on the way out. However, it seems they have had three major releases this year, so I guess I'm completely out on that one. Thanks for the response.
The problem was that systemd was railroaded so fast through most of the major distros -- almost as if it were an insideous update to a proprietary OS, with the questionable acceptance by the Debian technical committee being the worst outcome, as it affected so many derivative distros.
This is untrue. Yes, many distros decided to adopt it in a short timeframe, but Red Hat had been testing systemd for years before that, and it's not like this was the first time that someone has either tried to replace sysvinit or someone has tried to introduce process tracking to the kernel. The pain points were known for decades, and as someone who has written a (short) book on the shell, anyone who prefers Bash as a scripting language has brain damage.
Debian's technical committee was split between systemd and upstart, with OpenRC being a distant third, and only one person who favored sysvinit. Since it is hopefully not in dispute that upstart was the worse option there, we can consider the decision to have been the best outcome. Note also that this was merely a decision about the default init system: sysvinit is still supported. The reason why sysvinit was not popular, however, was that the init scripts are comparatively more difficult to maintain, and generally slower. If Devuan has decided to shoulder the maintenance burden, I'm sure I wish them the best of luck with that.
The anti-systemd crowd here are morons, severally and collectively. No, systemd is not perfect, but there's a reason why people have been trying to replace sysvinit for the past three decades. Even OpenRC is almost entirely written in C. Either learn why, or quit complaining.
Hilarious post. I checked out your game, too. The intro is pretty impressive, and the concept is also quite entertaining. I did not get into the gameplay, but I'll check it out later. Is it entirely Flash-based? Because that doesn't seem like a platform with a future, I regret to say.
"Motivational verse" just kills me. I'll have to show the gf this when she gets home.
So Mr. Libertarian, perhaps you can tell me why you're choosing to defend a government-granted monopoly here. Because from the outside it seems like you're too busy worshiping Mammon to pay attention to the many ways that our copyright law conflicts with your principles. Even if we accept the fiction that you retain some property interest in a copy which I make with my own labor and materials, the concept of criminal copyright is still dubious. Also, having infringement (which should fundamentally be a civil offense) be policed and investigated by the federal government is in essence Big Government regulating what you can and cannot say. Aren't we against that?
Your fundamental problem is this:
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” — Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson also points out that stable ownership exists solely by collective agreement: the natural order of things is that something is not your possession without it is within your physical control. However, while it's clear that government-granted monopolies are not consistent with your philosophy, we acknowledge that when your principles run afoul of the real world that you are willing to compromise them and call it pragmatism, so let's examine the actual problem that copyrights purport to solve. The fundamental issue is one of pricing and information: creators cannot know in advance how popular their work might be, and so cannot price it accurately when selling their works to a publisher. If you happened to write a bestseller, the value of that popularity would be captured by the publisher, not the author. Thus, to encourage the creation of new works, we have a system in which the original creator is granted a property interest in subsequent copies. This system is not in any sense necessary, and the negative consequences of this monopoly power can be argued to outweigh the benefits.
Fortunately, there are also other models for this. Patronage and commissioned works have enabled artists to create masterworks for centuries. Both have flourished on the Internet. Both pay-what-you-want models and the study referenced in TFA suggest that profits are possible even if many people choose not to pay for content. Also, in lowering the difficulty of self-publishing content to a negligible consideration, the Internet has removed much of the need for copyright in the first place (in addition to making it effectively obsolete).
There is no strict need to choose one model over the other: if one artist wishes to work for a salary and another chooses PWYW, it should be their own concern. I don't see any particular reason for the government to be involved in content creation in any way beyond contract enforcement, but I would certainly listen to an argument for a government-granted monopoly of an extremely limited duration. I would be somewhat dumbfounded hearing such from a libertarian, however.
This is true, but it is also perhaps relevant to note that that is an affirmative defense, which means that the AC was correct: as long as the filer owns the copyright it's legal for them to file. From what I recall of the response process, the infringer would need to specify which federal court they're okay with being sued in. I think that PDP would have an excellent case for fair use under the terms you identify. I don't know whether he has the means to argue that in court. I suspect that he can probably find them.
I feel like instant runoff, range voting, or approval voting would have had a strong chance of electing Johnson. I don't think that Trump's most ardent supporter could claim that he would win under approval voting, and Hillary was nearly as disliked. The country seemed like it was poised to take a more conservative turn, or perhaps I should say some conservative backlash, but Johnson might have won broad approval as everybody's second choice.
I disagree totally with libertarian principles, but I think that it's pretty clear to everyone that they are a large segment of American politics and that our political parties don't necessarily reflect the broad divisions in our society very well. I would like to institute a voting system which would more accurately reflect the support there is for your party. I think it would be better for the nation for us to have more choices at the polls, and more meaningful ones. I mean, at this point random lottery might even be a good option: I can certainly say that I trust the average person far more than the average politician. In any case, I reserve the right to an opposite opinion, but I do think it's a shame that neither of us are being heard.
Sure it does. The whole reason people want Net Neutrality is so that Comcast can't throttle Netflix.
No, that's you reducing the problem to one that you are capable of understanding and solving that. No one sells throttled Internet, they sell preferential access to their own services. Large-scale broadband installation is somewhat expensive and time consuming, especially if one has to negotiate easement rights with individual property holders. This represents a relatively large barrier to entry, which is what we call a "market failure". That does not go away if you take the government out of this problem. I mean, unless by government you just mean "collective action I don't like".
You have no basis for comparison, because you said so yourself.
Your assumption seems to be that the only reason people do drugs is for entertainment.
Straw man.
LSD has been known to cause suicides,
There is neither a causal link nor a strong correlation.
persistent psychological problems like paranoia and neurotic behavior
Again, the link is not causal, and the consistent finding across all categories of drug abuse is that the higher incidence of mental conditions in users reflects differences in the underlying population.
and since the body has a hard time processing LSD out of the system echos are a big problem
There is very little evidence that acid flashbacks are more than a myth. LSD is metabolized extremely rapidly, with plasma concentrations peaking at about five hours after intake. Metabolites are out of the system in a matter of days, at most. There may or may not be some neurological condition which results in something people would recognize as an "acid flashback", but even that much is disputed, and there is no reason to believe in a casual relationship.
Complaining about normalizing drug use in the US is asinine. The US has been arguing over what drugs are acceptable since the colonial days; we're the most drugged society in history. The onus is on opponents to show harm. There are many drugs which represent public health hazards; LSD is not on that list. You want someone else to take that idea seriously, come up with a study and not just more D.A.R.E. propoaganda. Then provide further evidence that this would apply to microdosing, of which the entire point is that it should barely have a perceptual effect. Otherwise you're pretty much just going to have to live with the idea that you live in a culture whose values are broadly opposite to yours, and that this will always be the case.
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with anybody taking tiny doses of one of the safest and most potent psychoactive agents known. What you are doing is called lying.
You were clear enough. Jefferson has some nice words here:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
To put things in economic terms, however, if the price of a good tends to approach the marginal cost of production, that suggests that all ideas should be priced at zero. The valuable good instead is the brain capable of producing good ideas, and this is perhaps suggestive of a patronage model. Alternately, you might file a patent on these ideas. If the subject is not patentable you are limited to the copyrights of your expressions of this idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't read Clarke this decade, but I think 'The City and the Stars' might be somewhat closer to a description of "a future in which nobody really understood how anything works."
I'm deeply impressed by your geek credentials. What sorts of things do you get into these days?
Not only did I not contradict that idea, but it is actually central to my argument.
I have to assume you only read half my comment. You've certainly proved my point about ignoring the issue of the militia, but you should probably note that suggesting that the military be disbanded is inconsistent with your last sentence. Also, whatever your opinions are about professional soldiers, [1] we do have them, and [2] it is hopefully not controversial to suggest that trained professionals will outperform amateurs. It should be especially uncontroversial given the events of 1814, but there are a number of examples throughout history to suggest that an effective fighting force is not a thing of improvisation.
Generally, I think the idea of defending a country with a militia is probably not optimal, and if there is going to be some country with the ability to project force around the globe, I'd rather it be this one. I'm completely fine with people arguing otherwise, and I could even find some arguments for that position myself. What I don't particularly agree with is doing an end-run around "shall not be infringed". Since that is liable to be a point of common ground, maybe you should find some more intelligent reply to my post.
a significant portion of Equifax Management are utterly incompetent and basically allowed one of the worst data breaches in history to happen on their watch... in which case we can only hope that shareholder lawsuits will follow.
Did you miss this one? The blood is most definitely in the water already.
We were intended to have a militia as opposed to a standing army. We re-thought that idea after the militia failed to prevent the Capitol from being burned, but did not revise the Constitution. One of the problems with starting the first modern democracy was that we didn't know what that would look like, and the Founders had somewhat romantic ideals there. It was envisioned that we would be a nation of citizen-farmers, self-sufficient men defending their own soil. This is still a popular idea, but in practice not everyone is capable or interested in living off their own land, and there isn't really a good substitute for the professional soldier. The consequences of 1814 seem to have been the 2nd Amendment dying the death of a thousand cuts, and the creation of the most powerful military in history.
Supporters of the 2nd Amendment tend to ignore these inconsistencies. I think we should try to resolve them. Either "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted more literally, and the military disbanded, or we should revise the Constitution to reflect the current state of affairs.
If it really was systemic racism, then no non-whites would be able to succeed.
Non sequitur.
So that some people thrive in a negative environment means we don't have to do anything about the negative environment? It's cute how you dress up your racist attitudes, but rather transparent.
32-bit vs 64-bit is not likely to be noticeable unless the processor does not support x86-64. If the processor does support 64-bit memory addressing, then I would probably consider it misguided to install a 32-bit OS, particularly in light of these kind of compatibility issues.
I'm all for a people's right to self-determination. Strangely, that's not what I hear from the protesters. The problem today is the same problem of 1898 -- yes, Hawaiians are culturally distinct from the mainland, but the economic ties are vital to their community in a fairly literal sense. Hawaiians don't like haoles, but apparently they're willing to hold their noses and take their money.
If Hawaii wants to leave the US, that's fine. We can drop them and let PR be a state, and not have to change the flag. This would be a complete economic disaster for the islands, but the same might be said of the former American colonies cutting political ties with Great Britain. If Hawaiians are saying, "give us liberty or give us death," by all means let them be liberated. What I'm not so sympathetic to is, "give us arbitrary and unlimited economic concessions for all time, or we'll stage protests."
He said a rational debate, not a parade of strawmen. If you're not willing to assume good faith, then you're right, you're not going to have any kind of discussion.
So you're saying that institutional racism doesn't exist, or that it's okay because no one is "trying" to be racist?
It must be acknowledged that "micro-aggression" is an extremely stupid word. However, if you don't think it refers to a real phenomenon, we can only ascribe that to inexperience.
We have to thank you for including "black people are lazy" in your list there. It certainly lets us know where you stand.
Were you trying to prove my point?
I'm really not sure how you can equate someone deciding that your commentary is valueless to oppression. An extreme emotional reaction, compounded with a non sequitur. You're really an intellectual tragedy, aren't you?
I've been reading your posts here for something like the last ten years. You rarely rise above the noise floor. What you're posting lately is not even intended to be discourse. This forum would be improved by your absence.
Is there something we can do to get you to fuck off in some sort of permanent sense? Your comments are consistently rude, uninformative, and humorless.
I meant that it was a lingua franca of its time, obviously.
I regret to say that this interpretation of your comment was to me far from obvious. Your clarification is appreciated, however.
This is sentiment that I would broadly agree with. I don't dispute the usefulness of Bash as a command language, but scripting is not where it excels. Arrays are painful, conditionals are an external command, and functions are limited to positional parameters. Even parsing command-line options is ugly. Where Bash shines is the ten-lines-or-less script, the glue code that marshals other commands, or transforms output into another input. It also is extremely well suited to processing structured or semi-structured text; the things that one can do with parameter expansion and variable access are impressive. A friend recently confessed to me that they had done all of the research for their doctoral thesis in epigenetics using Bash, and once I recovered from the shock it made a great deal of sense: what else is genetic data but a bunch of text strings?
I do consider Bash and the shell to be essential knowledge for the programmer; that's why I wrote a book about it. However, outside of a few very narrow use cases, there are better options for scripting languages.
I did figure that you were using Adobe AIR there, but I suppose I had thought that it was also on the way out. However, it seems they have had three major releases this year, so I guess I'm completely out on that one. Thanks for the response.
The problem was that systemd was railroaded so fast through most of the major distros -- almost as if it were an insideous update to a proprietary OS, with the questionable acceptance by the Debian technical committee being the worst outcome, as it affected so many derivative distros.
This is untrue. Yes, many distros decided to adopt it in a short timeframe, but Red Hat had been testing systemd for years before that, and it's not like this was the first time that someone has either tried to replace sysvinit or someone has tried to introduce process tracking to the kernel. The pain points were known for decades, and as someone who has written a (short) book on the shell, anyone who prefers Bash as a scripting language has brain damage.
Debian's technical committee was split between systemd and upstart, with OpenRC being a distant third, and only one person who favored sysvinit. Since it is hopefully not in dispute that upstart was the worse option there, we can consider the decision to have been the best outcome. Note also that this was merely a decision about the default init system: sysvinit is still supported. The reason why sysvinit was not popular, however, was that the init scripts are comparatively more difficult to maintain, and generally slower. If Devuan has decided to shoulder the maintenance burden, I'm sure I wish them the best of luck with that.
The anti-systemd crowd here are morons, severally and collectively. No, systemd is not perfect, but there's a reason why people have been trying to replace sysvinit for the past three decades. Even OpenRC is almost entirely written in C. Either learn why, or quit complaining.
Hilarious post. I checked out your game, too. The intro is pretty impressive, and the concept is also quite entertaining. I did not get into the gameplay, but I'll check it out later. Is it entirely Flash-based? Because that doesn't seem like a platform with a future, I regret to say.
"Motivational verse" just kills me. I'll have to show the gf this when she gets home.
In which case we would invite you to consult the definition of lingua franca.
So Mr. Libertarian, perhaps you can tell me why you're choosing to defend a government-granted monopoly here. Because from the outside it seems like you're too busy worshiping Mammon to pay attention to the many ways that our copyright law conflicts with your principles. Even if we accept the fiction that you retain some property interest in a copy which I make with my own labor and materials, the concept of criminal copyright is still dubious. Also, having infringement (which should fundamentally be a civil offense) be policed and investigated by the federal government is in essence Big Government regulating what you can and cannot say. Aren't we against that?
Your fundamental problem is this:
Jefferson also points out that stable ownership exists solely by collective agreement: the natural order of things is that something is not your possession without it is within your physical control. However, while it's clear that government-granted monopolies are not consistent with your philosophy, we acknowledge that when your principles run afoul of the real world that you are willing to compromise them and call it pragmatism, so let's examine the actual problem that copyrights purport to solve. The fundamental issue is one of pricing and information: creators cannot know in advance how popular their work might be, and so cannot price it accurately when selling their works to a publisher. If you happened to write a bestseller, the value of that popularity would be captured by the publisher, not the author. Thus, to encourage the creation of new works, we have a system in which the original creator is granted a property interest in subsequent copies. This system is not in any sense necessary, and the negative consequences of this monopoly power can be argued to outweigh the benefits.
Fortunately, there are also other models for this. Patronage and commissioned works have enabled artists to create masterworks for centuries. Both have flourished on the Internet. Both pay-what-you-want models and the study referenced in TFA suggest that profits are possible even if many people choose not to pay for content. Also, in lowering the difficulty of self-publishing content to a negligible consideration, the Internet has removed much of the need for copyright in the first place (in addition to making it effectively obsolete).
There is no strict need to choose one model over the other: if one artist wishes to work for a salary and another chooses PWYW, it should be their own concern. I don't see any particular reason for the government to be involved in content creation in any way beyond contract enforcement, but I would certainly listen to an argument for a government-granted monopoly of an extremely limited duration. I would be somewhat dumbfounded hearing such from a libertarian, however.
This is true, but it is also perhaps relevant to note that that is an affirmative defense, which means that the AC was correct: as long as the filer owns the copyright it's legal for them to file. From what I recall of the response process, the infringer would need to specify which federal court they're okay with being sued in. I think that PDP would have an excellent case for fair use under the terms you identify. I don't know whether he has the means to argue that in court. I suspect that he can probably find them.
I feel like instant runoff, range voting, or approval voting would have had a strong chance of electing Johnson. I don't think that Trump's most ardent supporter could claim that he would win under approval voting, and Hillary was nearly as disliked. The country seemed like it was poised to take a more conservative turn, or perhaps I should say some conservative backlash, but Johnson might have won broad approval as everybody's second choice.
I disagree totally with libertarian principles, but I think that it's pretty clear to everyone that they are a large segment of American politics and that our political parties don't necessarily reflect the broad divisions in our society very well. I would like to institute a voting system which would more accurately reflect the support there is for your party. I think it would be better for the nation for us to have more choices at the polls, and more meaningful ones. I mean, at this point random lottery might even be a good option: I can certainly say that I trust the average person far more than the average politician. In any case, I reserve the right to an opposite opinion, but I do think it's a shame that neither of us are being heard.
Sure it does. The whole reason people want Net Neutrality is so that Comcast can't throttle Netflix.
No, that's you reducing the problem to one that you are capable of understanding and solving that. No one sells throttled Internet, they sell preferential access to their own services. Large-scale broadband installation is somewhat expensive and time consuming, especially if one has to negotiate easement rights with individual property holders. This represents a relatively large barrier to entry, which is what we call a "market failure". That does not go away if you take the government out of this problem. I mean, unless by government you just mean "collective action I don't like".
You have no basis for comparison, because you said so yourself.
Your assumption seems to be that the only reason people do drugs is for entertainment.
Straw man.
LSD has been known to cause suicides,
There is neither a causal link nor a strong correlation.
persistent psychological problems like paranoia and neurotic behavior
Again, the link is not causal, and the consistent finding across all categories of drug abuse is that the higher incidence of mental conditions in users reflects differences in the underlying population.
and since the body has a hard time processing LSD out of the system echos are a big problem
There is very little evidence that acid flashbacks are more than a myth. LSD is metabolized extremely rapidly, with plasma concentrations peaking at about five hours after intake. Metabolites are out of the system in a matter of days, at most. There may or may not be some neurological condition which results in something people would recognize as an "acid flashback", but even that much is disputed, and there is no reason to believe in a casual relationship.
Complaining about normalizing drug use in the US is asinine. The US has been arguing over what drugs are acceptable since the colonial days; we're the most drugged society in history. The onus is on opponents to show harm. There are many drugs which represent public health hazards; LSD is not on that list. You want someone else to take that idea seriously, come up with a study and not just more D.A.R.E. propoaganda. Then provide further evidence that this would apply to microdosing, of which the entire point is that it should barely have a perceptual effect. Otherwise you're pretty much just going to have to live with the idea that you live in a culture whose values are broadly opposite to yours, and that this will always be the case.
The truth is that there is nothing wrong with anybody taking tiny doses of one of the safest and most potent psychoactive agents known. What you are doing is called lying.
You were clear enough. Jefferson has some nice words here:
To put things in economic terms, however, if the price of a good tends to approach the marginal cost of production, that suggests that all ideas should be priced at zero. The valuable good instead is the brain capable of producing good ideas, and this is perhaps suggestive of a patronage model. Alternately, you might file a patent on these ideas. If the subject is not patentable you are limited to the copyrights of your expressions of this idea.
And it is not an appy app.
Aww :( too bad