I thought it was clear I was talking about physics theories, in relation to other theories. As in, our current physics theories are orders of magnitude more accurate and comprehensive than, say, our economic theories. Rereading my post, I guess I could have been clearer.
Without your cogent and well referenced criticisms, we would all blindly trust whatever those stupid, stupid scientists tell us. Seriously, though, you DO know that our current theories are quite simply, the most accurate and comprehensive theories mankind has ever developed, right? Your knee-jerk dismissal illustrates nothing more than your own ignorance and prejudice.
You have no idea what its like to be poor, do you? Your anecdotal bullshit about 'inner-city' people with cellphones is ludicrous. Rich and middle class people do live in and visit inner cities. Did you count all the people without them? No. Of course not.
Let me ask you a question. Did you go to public school? If so, you received a public benefit that exists for the same reason libraries do. A democracy can't function without an educated populace. Would you deny that education to older people who may have missed out on a good public education for whatever reason? If so, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You benefit from being a part of a more educated populace. Therefore, your taxes should go to help pay for that benefit.
Over half of all low income families use the public library as their primary Internet connection. You try making ends meet with a family living on $30,000 a year, and that with two breadwinners both of whom probably work multiple jobs. See if you can afford that $100 computer plus $7 a month when you are already forced to choose between buying heat, medicine, or food this month. They don't have access. It is true. You can lie to yourself about poverty all you like, if that helps you sleep soundly at night, but it doesn't change the facts. Just keep telling yourself, "The world is fair. Good people are rewarded. Bad people are punished. Everyone gets a fair shot. The only reason people fail is through their own lack of effort." but don't be surprised when people of conscience do not respect you.
Okay, where can I go to find free books, movies and music in physical formats, online? I don't want to download to a screen reader. I want an actual physical book. One I can take out on my lawn and shake at you kids, yelling, "Get off my lawn or I'll throw this book at you!"
Now, I have a further question. Name one single media technology that has killed off any previous media technologies. Okay, okay, the telegraph finally died a few years ago after a hundred and fifty plus year run. But I still read books, see plays, listen to radio, watch TV, and go to movies. All of which have been pronounced 'dead' by various prognosticators at one time or another. All of whom have been wrong. I don't think the Internet is going to kill anything off. And there is a sizable group of people for whom their local public library IS their Internet access point: low income and homeless people.
The purpose of libraries is to pay for an externality: an educated and cultured citizenry, one of the cornerstones of any democracy. Because every citizen gains value from having an educated and cultured populace, but baring government intervention only the individual pays for it, the price point of culture and information does not reflect its true value to society, and we need things like libraries and public schools.
Now, some people do not see the cultural or educational value in video games, but I ask you this: how will people who know nothing of video games vote correctly on issues regarding video games? Will they just listen to kooks who tell them video games are evil? If they have to buy or rent games, they may not bother to check them out for themselves. But if anyone can check out a game from their local library. maybe a few people will actually look for themselves when someone says so and so game is evil, immoral, and bad for kids. This is a good thing for society, and worth our tax dollars.
Geoengineering is such a spectacularly bad idea as to warrant armed revolt in order to prevent it.
I'm as green as the next guy, but that's a bit harsh. It seems you are advocating violence against companies like Shell, Exon, Mobile, and others that are engaged in large scale geoengineering projects such as pumping gigatons of CO2 into the air. While I agree they need to stop, I think legislation should be the first step. Only if they won't take the hint should we send in the government with tanks and bombs and such.
If someone uses that phrase with you, I suggest this line of inquiry:
"Would you bring a hot woman into your man cave, to have sex with her?" All straight men who use the phrase 'man cave' will answer yes to this question. "So, you would enjoy some action in your man cave?" If you can manage to get that line out with a straight face, he will probably answer yes. This next bit is significantly harder, as it may require you to feign attraction to the troglodyte in order to throw him off: "Oooh, sexy! You want to fill up your man cave with hot man love?" Obviously, this is most effective if his friends are around, or you can get video or audio of the preceding.
Adobe installers are pernicious, sneaky, and they will attempt to install things you don't want. When an installer that acts like malware gets replaced with real malware, that could be classified as 'totally ironic' on the Morrisette Irony Scale.
Didn't even think of that, did you? The sea level may have risen "only" 3.5 inches (that's a lot) but that means more of the island would be underwater more of the time, leading to increased erosion rates. From the wiki article, I've gleaned that the highest point on the island was around 2 meters, that it appeared relatively recently, and was made mostly from silt deposits. It wouldn't take too much of a rise in sea level to change the rate of silt deposition relative to erosion.
However, I think it is clear from reading the wikipedia article, this was a silt deposit in a river delta that floods once a year. It was never a permanent feature. Global warming likely sped things up, but this 'island' was never here to stay.
It's a little more complicated. If you do something for a living that you would do anyway, if you were independently wealthy, you aren't a whore. If you do something that you would never do unless you got paid, you are a whore. Obviously, most actual whores would still have sex for free if they were wealthy, they just wouldn't have sex with you.
Now, I don't think Icaza is a regular whore. He would still be coding if he wasn't getting paid. I think he's an attention whore, which is slightly different. Regular whores do things for money, while attention whores will do anything for attention. Which is even sadder, in a way.
Well hey, we agree! As an aside, look at Cybersyn Project that Allende spearheaded back in socialist Chile. There are alternatives to the price signals of the free market. Coincidence that he was ousted right after creating Cybersyn? Maybe.
Sorry, but in reality, Girl Scouts, as an example, can't sing copyrighted songs at their jamborees. Just because the copyright owners don't go after everyone doesn't mean they couldn't if they wanted to.
And to illustrate the difference between real and imaginary property, let me point out that you could easily trade real goods with China, even without a government. People did, way back through prehistory. But they never sold songs.
Oh, I get it. You thought I was complaining about the 'man' part of it. Nope. I was not saying, "ooh, MAN cave, that's sexist." I explained why I think it's a goofy phrase down below a bit. Man cave. Hehehe.
Besides, my sig is a quote. I can't very well misquote the guy, can I? He said men, but it was pretty clear he meant 'mankind' by the context. Man cave is sex specific, but again, that's not really the reason "Man cave" makes me chuckle.
My point is, patents and copyrights are artificial monopolies that turn a non rival good into a rival good. Without a good reason, this is simply counter productive. The good reason given in the constitution is to promote the arts and sciences. If the copyright and patent systems do that, they are functioning correctly. If they do not do that, they have failed and must be changed.
This artificial, government enforced monopoly is not natural. It does not exist so that creators may profit. It exists so we all may profit. If we are not profiting from the artificial system we created, we should vote against it. With our votes, not our dollars. It isn't the product we are voting against, but the system that creates an artificial scarcity of that product.
Okay, I'm beginning to understand your position, and honestly, we may not be on exactly the same page, but I think we're in the same chapter.
Let me ask, have you read any Proudhon? I recommend "Property is Theft!"
I know that in reality, I may have a hard time protecting my real property if society breaks down. All I'm trying to say is, it would be easier to protect my personal or real property in such a situation than it would be to protect my artificial monopoly on creative works.
Without an enforced monopoly, anyone could copy my work without paying me for it. Not just random guys on the Internet, big companies. That would drive the price for copies of my work down to commodity pricing levels. Yes, it would only take one guy to steal my car, but how many would want to, as opposed to how many would want to copy my work? I'm sorry, but stealing a car takes more effort than copying a song.
In your paragraph on Constitutionalism, I can see that you've been arguing against an imaginary opponent. That's okay, because I don't think I've been arguing against what your really saying either, anymore. To be clear, I agree 100% with your statement that "There is nothing Constitutionalist about current copyright law." And I agree with your explanation as to how and why that became true. Including the fact that Europe sees copyright as a natural right of artists, which is very different than our original viewpoint on the matter. Hell, we were some of the biggest 'pirates' on the planet back then, at least when it came to other country's IP.
Agreement in what sense? Uh, come on. In whatever sense was agreed to! If you agree to a consensus process, then it means consensus, and so forth. You agree by accepting the benefits of living in society, and agreeing to play by the rules. As with any other contract, it's valid when you offer something of value and accept something of value. Which is what you've done, by staying in America.
I would not be a part of a society that agreed to kill people for arbitrary reasons. If I do something that society feels I need to be killed for, well, I might not like it, but I agree with the principle.
In the case of a creative work, the only 'fruits of your labor' you are entitled to enjoy is that singular work. Why should you be able to enjoy the fruits of someone else's work? That's what you are doing when you profit from someone else's copy of your work. After all, I have a natural right to create anything I can experience or imagine. If you didn't want me to copy it, why did you show it to me?
In any case, could you please explain to me how you can enjoy the fruits of your labor without saying 'It's mine and you can't touch it?' If you can just take it, and it is a rival good, then I can't enjoy it. I it is non-rival, you can copy it (fruits of your labor) and I can still enjoy the copy I have (fruits of my labor.)
As I said, you've not grasped my argument. My fault, obviously. And I've not grasped yours (but I am now, I hope) My rant is not based on the idea that tangible=real, intangible=imaginary.
It is more complex than that. It is based partly on the idea that certain classes of property require more work to protect than other classes. It is also based on the idea that intangible property is non-rival, meaning, the laws of the free market, which are meant to adjudicate the distribution of scarce resources, do not apply. There is no scarcity with intangible goods. If I share an idea, I do not lose that idea.
The points I'm trying to make are: 1.) Intellectual property is an artificial monopoly on a non-rival good, which turns it into a rival good. 2.) Real property is a rival good. If I have it, you don't. 3.) It is easier to protect a rival good because there is only one of it. To protect a non-rival good, we must prevent everyone from copying any copy out there. That is harder than preventing someone from stealing a physical thing. How would you even know if your work was copied? 4.) The original intent of the fra
Absolutely wrong. TFA even states this means nothing for dark matter, we knew that these galaxies were out there, we just hadn't spotted them yet. Besides, we've seen dark matter much closer to home. When galaxies collide, the gas pressure stops the regular matter, while the dark matter keeps moving along at the same speed. The dark matter has mass, so it creates a gravatic lens. We have seen these lenses, with no visible matter to create them, when galaxies collide.
No. Without society, you take your fucking LIFE into your hands when you shoplift. Get it? You might get SHOT. The price is not zero. Look at the underground economy. Physical goods in the underground economy still have value, and are traded for cash. Without government intervention of any kind, these goods are still traded for cash. Intangible goods have very little value in the underground economy. Understand the difference now?
I can enforce my own ownership rights very easily for tangible property I am currently using. First, I don't need to protect it from everyone in the world, I just need to protect it from people nearby, because they need to come and physically remove me from the property.
For tangible property I am not using, I need a little more help. For non tangible property, I need A LOT of help protecting it. In fact, I need to prevent everyone in the world from copying it.
Copying is very different than physically taking something. "Everyone in the world" is not the same thing as "people nearby."
Fraud is not a form of free market. You can't 'steal my identity.' I still have it. You would be committing fraud. That is something very different than copying an album. Fraud is covered by different laws than copyright and patents. Those laws exist for very different reasons. Nobody, anywhere, claims 'ownership rights' to their identity. Except maybe celebrities, and they claim it not to prevent fraud, but for standard copyright reasons: they don't want others making money off their images.
As far as I know, we were discussing copyright and patent, not fraud. Why go off on an unrelated tangent like that?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was clear I was talking about physics theories, in relation to other theories. As in, our current physics theories are orders of magnitude more accurate and comprehensive than, say, our economic theories. Rereading my post, I guess I could have been clearer.
Here, this may help clear up your misunderstanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Without your cogent and well referenced criticisms, we would all blindly trust whatever those stupid, stupid scientists tell us. Seriously, though, you DO know that our current theories are quite simply, the most accurate and comprehensive theories mankind has ever developed, right? Your knee-jerk dismissal illustrates nothing more than your own ignorance and prejudice.
You have no idea what its like to be poor, do you? Your anecdotal bullshit about 'inner-city' people with cellphones is ludicrous. Rich and middle class people do live in and visit inner cities. Did you count all the people without them? No. Of course not.
Let me ask you a question. Did you go to public school? If so, you received a public benefit that exists for the same reason libraries do. A democracy can't function without an educated populace. Would you deny that education to older people who may have missed out on a good public education for whatever reason? If so, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. You benefit from being a part of a more educated populace. Therefore, your taxes should go to help pay for that benefit.
Over half of all low income families use the public library as their primary Internet connection. You try making ends meet with a family living on $30,000 a year, and that with two breadwinners both of whom probably work multiple jobs. See if you can afford that $100 computer plus $7 a month when you are already forced to choose between buying heat, medicine, or food this month. They don't have access. It is true. You can lie to yourself about poverty all you like, if that helps you sleep soundly at night, but it doesn't change the facts. Just keep telling yourself, "The world is fair. Good people are rewarded. Bad people are punished. Everyone gets a fair shot. The only reason people fail is through their own lack of effort." but don't be surprised when people of conscience do not respect you.
I'm not your guy, buddy.
Okay, where can I go to find free books, movies and music in physical formats, online? I don't want to download to a screen reader. I want an actual physical book. One I can take out on my lawn and shake at you kids, yelling, "Get off my lawn or I'll throw this book at you!"
Now, I have a further question. Name one single media technology that has killed off any previous media technologies. Okay, okay, the telegraph finally died a few years ago after a hundred and fifty plus year run. But I still read books, see plays, listen to radio, watch TV, and go to movies. All of which have been pronounced 'dead' by various prognosticators at one time or another. All of whom have been wrong. I don't think the Internet is going to kill anything off. And there is a sizable group of people for whom their local public library IS their Internet access point: low income and homeless people.
The purpose of libraries is to pay for an externality: an educated and cultured citizenry, one of the cornerstones of any democracy. Because every citizen gains value from having an educated and cultured populace, but baring government intervention only the individual pays for it, the price point of culture and information does not reflect its true value to society, and we need things like libraries and public schools.
Now, some people do not see the cultural or educational value in video games, but I ask you this: how will people who know nothing of video games vote correctly on issues regarding video games? Will they just listen to kooks who tell them video games are evil? If they have to buy or rent games, they may not bother to check them out for themselves. But if anyone can check out a game from their local library. maybe a few people will actually look for themselves when someone says so and so game is evil, immoral, and bad for kids. This is a good thing for society, and worth our tax dollars.
Geoengineering is such a spectacularly bad idea as to warrant armed revolt in order to prevent it.
I'm as green as the next guy, but that's a bit harsh. It seems you are advocating violence against companies like Shell, Exon, Mobile, and others that are engaged in large scale geoengineering projects such as pumping gigatons of CO2 into the air. While I agree they need to stop, I think legislation should be the first step. Only if they won't take the hint should we send in the government with tanks and bombs and such.
If someone uses that phrase with you, I suggest this line of inquiry:
"Would you bring a hot woman into your man cave, to have sex with her?"
All straight men who use the phrase 'man cave' will answer yes to this question.
"So, you would enjoy some action in your man cave?"
If you can manage to get that line out with a straight face, he will probably answer yes. This next bit is significantly harder, as it may require you to feign attraction to the troglodyte in order to throw him off: "Oooh, sexy! You want to fill up your man cave with hot man love?"
Obviously, this is most effective if his friends are around, or you can get video or audio of the preceding.
Adobe installers are pernicious, sneaky, and they will attempt to install things you don't want. When an installer that acts like malware gets replaced with real malware, that could be classified as 'totally ironic' on the Morrisette Irony Scale.
Didn't even think of that, did you? The sea level may have risen "only" 3.5 inches (that's a lot) but that means more of the island would be underwater more of the time, leading to increased erosion rates. From the wiki article, I've gleaned that the highest point on the island was around 2 meters, that it appeared relatively recently, and was made mostly from silt deposits. It wouldn't take too much of a rise in sea level to change the rate of silt deposition relative to erosion.
However, I think it is clear from reading the wikipedia article, this was a silt deposit in a river delta that floods once a year. It was never a permanent feature. Global warming likely sped things up, but this 'island' was never here to stay.
But sure he's allowed to change his mind
He's a woman?
No, no, no, mcgrew. Chris said 'allowed to' not 'required to every five minutes.'
It's a little more complicated. If you do something for a living that you would do anyway, if you were independently wealthy, you aren't a whore. If you do something that you would never do unless you got paid, you are a whore. Obviously, most actual whores would still have sex for free if they were wealthy, they just wouldn't have sex with you.
Now, I don't think Icaza is a regular whore. He would still be coding if he wasn't getting paid. I think he's an attention whore, which is slightly different. Regular whores do things for money, while attention whores will do anything for attention. Which is even sadder, in a way.
Well hey, we agree! As an aside, look at Cybersyn Project that Allende spearheaded back in socialist Chile. There are alternatives to the price signals of the free market. Coincidence that he was ousted right after creating Cybersyn? Maybe.
Hahaha, yes. Completely harmless. He never meant for it to immolate that aircraft carrier.
Sorry, but in reality, Girl Scouts, as an example, can't sing copyrighted songs at their jamborees. Just because the copyright owners don't go after everyone doesn't mean they couldn't if they wanted to.
And to illustrate the difference between real and imaginary property, let me point out that you could easily trade real goods with China, even without a government. People did, way back through prehistory. But they never sold songs.
Oh, please. I'm the trollingest troll who ever trolled a troll here on Slashdot. I'm hardly offended.
Trolled, days later. Awesome.
Oh, I get it. You thought I was complaining about the 'man' part of it. Nope. I was not saying, "ooh, MAN cave, that's sexist." I explained why I think it's a goofy phrase down below a bit. Man cave. Hehehe.
Besides, my sig is a quote. I can't very well misquote the guy, can I? He said men, but it was pretty clear he meant 'mankind' by the context. Man cave is sex specific, but again, that's not really the reason "Man cave" makes me chuckle.
My point is, patents and copyrights are artificial monopolies that turn a non rival good into a rival good. Without a good reason, this is simply counter productive. The good reason given in the constitution is to promote the arts and sciences. If the copyright and patent systems do that, they are functioning correctly. If they do not do that, they have failed and must be changed.
This artificial, government enforced monopoly is not natural. It does not exist so that creators may profit. It exists so we all may profit. If we are not profiting from the artificial system we created, we should vote against it. With our votes, not our dollars. It isn't the product we are voting against, but the system that creates an artificial scarcity of that product.
Okay, I'm beginning to understand your position, and honestly, we may not be on exactly the same page, but I think we're in the same chapter.
Let me ask, have you read any Proudhon? I recommend "Property is Theft!"
I know that in reality, I may have a hard time protecting my real property if society breaks down. All I'm trying to say is, it would be easier to protect my personal or real property in such a situation than it would be to protect my artificial monopoly on creative works.
Without an enforced monopoly, anyone could copy my work without paying me for it. Not just random guys on the Internet, big companies. That would drive the price for copies of my work down to commodity pricing levels. Yes, it would only take one guy to steal my car, but how many would want to, as opposed to how many would want to copy my work? I'm sorry, but stealing a car takes more effort than copying a song.
In your paragraph on Constitutionalism, I can see that you've been arguing against an imaginary opponent. That's okay, because I don't think I've been arguing against what your really saying either, anymore. To be clear, I agree 100% with your statement that "There is nothing Constitutionalist about current copyright law." And I agree with your explanation as to how and why that became true. Including the fact that Europe sees copyright as a natural right of artists, which is very different than our original viewpoint on the matter. Hell, we were some of the biggest 'pirates' on the planet back then, at least when it came to other country's IP.
Agreement in what sense? Uh, come on. In whatever sense was agreed to! If you agree to a consensus process, then it means consensus, and so forth. You agree by accepting the benefits of living in society, and agreeing to play by the rules. As with any other contract, it's valid when you offer something of value and accept something of value. Which is what you've done, by staying in America.
I would not be a part of a society that agreed to kill people for arbitrary reasons. If I do something that society feels I need to be killed for, well, I might not like it, but I agree with the principle.
In the case of a creative work, the only 'fruits of your labor' you are entitled to enjoy is that singular work. Why should you be able to enjoy the fruits of someone else's work? That's what you are doing when you profit from someone else's copy of your work. After all, I have a natural right to create anything I can experience or imagine. If you didn't want me to copy it, why did you show it to me?
In any case, could you please explain to me how you can enjoy the fruits of your labor without saying 'It's mine and you can't touch it?' If you can just take it, and it is a rival good, then I can't enjoy it. I it is non-rival, you can copy it (fruits of your labor) and I can still enjoy the copy I have (fruits of my labor.)
As I said, you've not grasped my argument. My fault, obviously. And I've not grasped yours (but I am now, I hope) My rant is not based on the idea that tangible=real, intangible=imaginary.
It is more complex than that. It is based partly on the idea that certain classes of property require more work to protect than other classes. It is also based on the idea that intangible property is non-rival, meaning, the laws of the free market, which are meant to adjudicate the distribution of scarce resources, do not apply. There is no scarcity with intangible goods. If I share an idea, I do not lose that idea.
The points I'm trying to make are:
1.) Intellectual property is an artificial monopoly on a non-rival good, which turns it into a rival good.
2.) Real property is a rival good. If I have it, you don't.
3.) It is easier to protect a rival good because there is only one of it. To protect a non-rival good, we must prevent everyone from copying any copy out there. That is harder than preventing someone from stealing a physical thing. How would you even know if your work was copied?
4.) The original intent of the fra
Absolutely wrong. TFA even states this means nothing for dark matter, we knew that these galaxies were out there, we just hadn't spotted them yet. Besides, we've seen dark matter much closer to home. When galaxies collide, the gas pressure stops the regular matter, while the dark matter keeps moving along at the same speed. The dark matter has mass, so it creates a gravatic lens. We have seen these lenses, with no visible matter to create them, when galaxies collide.
That's what Zoolander would name it.
I was thinking Leonard of Quirm.
The "Very Large Telescope?" Come on. We can do better than that. I suggest "Really Big Round Glass Thing for Seeing Further."
No. Without society, you take your fucking LIFE into your hands when you shoplift. Get it? You might get SHOT. The price is not zero. Look at the underground economy. Physical goods in the underground economy still have value, and are traded for cash. Without government intervention of any kind, these goods are still traded for cash. Intangible goods have very little value in the underground economy. Understand the difference now?
I can enforce my own ownership rights very easily for tangible property I am currently using. First, I don't need to protect it from everyone in the world, I just need to protect it from people nearby, because they need to come and physically remove me from the property.
For tangible property I am not using, I need a little more help. For non tangible property, I need A LOT of help protecting it. In fact, I need to prevent everyone in the world from copying it.
Copying is very different than physically taking something. "Everyone in the world" is not the same thing as "people nearby."
Fraud is not a form of free market. You can't 'steal my identity.' I still have it. You would be committing fraud. That is something very different than copying an album. Fraud is covered by different laws than copyright and patents. Those laws exist for very different reasons. Nobody, anywhere, claims 'ownership rights' to their identity. Except maybe celebrities, and they claim it not to prevent fraud, but for standard copyright reasons: they don't want others making money off their images.
As far as I know, we were discussing copyright and patent, not fraud. Why go off on an unrelated tangent like that?