But does Habeas Corpus? That is the question at hand. It does apply to all people, all your rhetorical bluster aside. Way to duck the real question, though.
Look further down my post. As I stated, the device he used is known as a "Rhetorical Question". He wasn't asking, he was telling, and you failed to understand, even when it was explicitly pointed out to you. Are you really that dumb, or are you pleading ignorance to save face because you have no rebuttal?
Admit it, you have no idea why two different words would be used, but you know it undermines your point completely, so you tell him to 'look it up' as if that even speaks to the point he made. You completely underestimate the intelligence of the average Slashdot user, because we can all see through your transparent ploy.
Let me state it explicitly: If the US constitution only applies to US citizens as you state based on the preamble, there would be no need for the document itself to use two separate words: citizen, and person. What all constitutional lawyers, and most reasonable people understand is that 'person' applies to everyone, and only when the word 'citizen' is used does the document restrict its scope to 'US citizens.'
No, you didn't. You brought up one point, which he rebutted by asking "Then why does it later specifically address citizens, if the whole document is intended for them?" That is a solid rebuttal of your point about the use of the phrase 'We the People of the United States" in the preamble. You then turn around and say, "You should look up why." No, you should tell us why his point does not rebut yours, or we will have to consider your point rebutted.
He isn't asking, it's a rhetorical question. The intent of his statement wasn't to ask, but to state: "you are wrong, and here's why." So you would not be 'doing his work for him,' by addressing his point. You would be supporting your own point, which has been successfully attacked by a valid criticism.
When did the term 'intellectual property' become commonplace? It was recently, and it was a concerted effort by those holding vast quantities of said 'property' to redefine what the public thinks. Copyright, trademark, and patent do not fit the description of property. The are non-exclusionary. With any sort of real or personal property, if I sell it to you, I no longer have it.
You make the bald assertion that 99% of the population sees an analogy, do you have anything to back that up with, or are you just writing unsupported opinions? People in America believe in our constitution, which gives the government the right to grant limited term monopolies to creators, in order to further the arts and sciences, NOT to enrich the creator.
Get it? We are not Europe, we do not believe that creators have any inherent right to their creations. It is only to benefit society that we grant them such rights. Now, you may agree or disagree with that stance, but it is what the highest law of our land states. By conflating copyright, patent, and trademark with real property, the copyright owners are hoping that people will come to see these things as a type of property, deserving of the exact same protections as real or personal property.
Calling copyright, patent, and trademark 'Intellectual Property' is a part of a movement to destroy the basis of the American system and undermine the constitution. I think you are smart enough to know that, I think that's exactly what you want to have happen, that's why you engage in these kinds of arguments, and why you get so angry.
I was trying to be polite. Why must you continue to insult, are your arguments that weak? You are obviously so angered by my writing that you can't think straight. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to piss you off this time. But please try to remember what other people reading your response to me will think about you, your style of argumentation, and the validity of your thoughts. You aren't winning anyone over. People here don't buy emotional appeals, in fact, most here think less of you for using them.
Let me simplify things so your anger addled brain can understand: Superset terms should accurately reflect the most important properties of the referenced members of the set. 'Intellectual' isn't an accurate descriptor for the aforementioned items , and neither is 'property.'
If 'thought monopoly' doesn't work for you, how about 'expression monopoly?' That is an accurate superset term.
Why not respond to the posts that have proven the central thesis of your argument wrong? Habeas Corpus applies to everyone, as written in the constitution. Ever single person the Federal government comes into contact with. Everyone.
The reason you have not responded is that your post is professional propaganda paid for by the US government. You are an employee of a government agency with a sordid history of using propaganda against our citizens. Why should we believe you are not engaged in that activity right now? You know quite well how propaganda works: you've made your point, and made it first. You don't need to refute anything. The people who want to believe you will, and the people who don't, never would have. You've already won over the idiots and the easily swayed, so you've done your job and will certainly get kudos from your employer.
Are you saying that trademarks, patents, and copyright aren't different? They are all the same in one way: they are government granted monopolies on the expression of ideas. Patents and copyright are similar in another way, in that they serve a similar purpose, encouraging innovation. But they are different in most other ways. Trademarks are very different in almost all ways, as they serve the purpose of limiting fraud.
The main issue is, why would you need to refer to them under one superset term? The only real reason I can see is to advance the agenda of treating them all as if they really were property which they are not. They are government granted monopolies on the expression of ideas. Why not call them thought monopolies? That would be a more accurate blanket term, but it doesn't advance the real agenda, so of course it isn't used.
A pizza and a wife are similar in some ways, they are things that make one feel good, they are also things one can eat, and they both occasionally have sausage in them. Of those three shared definitions, few would argue that 'enjoyable things' would be a category one could lump them both in. Many people would find the other two shared definitions somewhat insulting, as they denigrate the true purpose of a mate. Lumping trademarks, copyright, and patents under the rubric 'Intellectual Property' denigrates their true purposes (preventing fraud in the first case, encouraging innovation in the latter two) and thus is offensive.
Does that help you understand why some people find the term 'intellectual property' offensive? I'm not asking you to agree with the argument, but you seemed confused as to what it was, and I hope this helps.
That is fascinating. One other interesting bit of recent research on sensing showed that tetrachromats, who have an extra color receptor in the eye, develop a matching sense processing region in the brain. If all they had was the extra receptor, or it didn't interface, or the brain wasn't plastic enough to develop new processing systems for new senses, they wouldn't actually see extra colors. But they do. So it seems the brain has a way of integrating extra senses that come along.
You may want to read up on the somatosensory system. From wiki:
Touch may be considered one of five human senses; however, when a person touches something or somebody this gives rise to various feelings: the perception of pressure (hence shape, softness, texture, vibration, etc.), relative temperature and sometimes pain. Thus the term "touch" is actually the combined term for several senses.
Touch isn't one sense. Temperature, surface detail, and pressure are separate parts of it. Besides balance, there's also proprioception, which lets you know where your body parts are. Then there's the sense of thoughtforms, the ability to know one's own thoughts and feelings, and the sense of self, which is the only thing that lets us do anything useful with our mental models of the world we build out of all the other senses by relating the model of the world to the model of the individual.
You may be surprised to learn there are more than four tastes, too. Besides the sour, salty, sweet, and bitter we're all familiar with, there's a fifth type of taste bud that detects glutamate, a flavor known as'umami' and characterized as 'savory' or 'meaty.'
Remember when blacks were considered property? Would you say that they shouldn't get to do what they want with other people's property? Meaning, themselves. The majority of Americans today are wage slaves, and have little say over what is done with the value they generate in society. That does suck. Corporations take what they want and have no serious consequences. I guess the rules depend on whether you are a human or a corporation, eh?
The thing that pissed me off the most is that his ideas were really good, and he had the capacity to create decent plots. But he kept stringing us along and his plots went to hell, and then there was basically nothing because his character development and skill as a wordsmith are seriously lacking.
Obviously, in Robert Jordan's case, you do NOT need to wrap it up. You can keep stringing people along until you pass away. You've got more stamina than I do, I stopped reading by book seven. It's not even the interminable and unchanging plots, it's his amateur command of the English language. I read one too many sentences describing a woman smoothing the front of her damn dress, flipped out, through book seven against a wall and haven't looked back.
"I do own a hamster though, would you care to borrow it?" Are you sure you'd want it back? Well, originally I borrowed him from Richard Gere, and he didn't want the hamster back either. I call him 'Enos.' He's a little stinky, but he's a lovable little scamp.
Fortunately, in a billion years Andromeda will merge with the Milky Way so we'll be able to get genuine Andromedan cuisine right here in the newly formed Andromilkeday galaxy.
Luckily for me I have my boss convinced that Slashdot is crucial reading material. The migration is going very well, we're moving everything to IBM BladeCenters running VMWare running (mostly) Linux. We never were an MS shop (aside from the desktop), we've always had a mix of Novell, HP-UX, and AIX. We have been talking about ditching MS altogether, but we're a social services agency (Child, Youth, and Family Development) and a lot of our social workers in the field have custom Access (AAAAAaaarrrrrgh!) databases for generating reports. This is so wrong on so many levels, but so hard to transition away from. Last count, there were over 2,000 custom Ughcess databases pulling info from our main database server (bad, bad, bad practice , both from a data integrity and HIPPA standpoint) We're trying to get everybody using a web based report generator but that has been an uphill battle. Also, the state handles our email and they use Exchange so everyone is using the Outlook client. Aside from those issues, there's the usual.doc hell, but that's about all that's holding us back from moving to a fully open-source system.
Screw you twitter. I use Linux every day, at work and at home. I'm sysadmin for thirty Linux servers in a state department that is dedicated to switching to Linux, buttmunch.
I searched the MEPIS site for info on flash and found none. I gave useful info on digital photos in Linux. Why be such an ass towards me? I am now convinced you are a dirty Microsoft shill sent here to make open source look bad.
Oh twitter, you are so predictable. But to be fair, the aunt Tillys of the world could be just as happy with Linux as they are with Windows if it does what they want to do. What do they do with computers? They write email, chat, write and print out letters, view and print pictures... hey wait a minute, how easy is that last one? A quick visit to MEPIS help shows the camera part of it shouldn't be a problem. What about printers? Looks like MEPIS has a nice guide for that, too.
Things are looking good so far.
But what else do the aunt Tillys of the world like to do? Browse the web. Preferably any part of the web that requires a bazillion plugins like flash. And here MEPIS falls flat. Getting all the required add ons into any Linux based browser has always been a total pain in the ass, and quite frankly is one of the biggest barriers to Linux adoption by all the 'little users' of the world. These are the people who don't want to do much with their computers, and they have no particular loyalty towards nor skill with Microsoft's products. If only they could do all of the few things they actually want to do with computers on Linux, we'd have twenty million converts in a day. But multimedia playback and browser plug-in support have always been a nightmare under Linux, and those are two of the most important issues to the vast majority of potential adoptees.
I know what I did to piss SIIHP off, what did I ever do to you? Assuming you aren't lying about that AC comment's true authorship... Wait, okay, I read your only journal entry. Evidently you are just an irresponsible asshole.
Patches can be slipstreamed anyway, and for the mother of all 'off-line patching systems' there's Windows Server Update Services. Slipstreaming? WSUS? Those are useful in entirely different situations. Autopatcher is for when you are visiting your aunt Tilly and don't want to spend four hours downloading all the latest patches for her over her dialup. Please explain how either of your proposed solutions would be even remotely useful in the very common situation of patching a relative's computer.
Slashdot Mirror
But does Habeas Corpus? That is the question at hand. It does apply to all people, all your rhetorical bluster aside. Way to duck the real question, though.
Look further down my post. As I stated, the device he used is known as a "Rhetorical Question". He wasn't asking, he was telling, and you failed to understand, even when it was explicitly pointed out to you. Are you really that dumb, or are you pleading ignorance to save face because you have no rebuttal?
Admit it, you have no idea why two different words would be used, but you know it undermines your point completely, so you tell him to 'look it up' as if that even speaks to the point he made. You completely underestimate the intelligence of the average Slashdot user, because we can all see through your transparent ploy.
Let me state it explicitly: If the US constitution only applies to US citizens as you state based on the preamble, there would be no need for the document itself to use two separate words: citizen, and person. What all constitutional lawyers, and most reasonable people understand is that 'person' applies to everyone, and only when the word 'citizen' is used does the document restrict its scope to 'US citizens.'
No, you didn't. You brought up one point, which he rebutted by asking "Then why does it later specifically address citizens, if the whole document is intended for them?" That is a solid rebuttal of your point about the use of the phrase 'We the People of the United States" in the preamble. You then turn around and say, "You should look up why." No, you should tell us why his point does not rebut yours, or we will have to consider your point rebutted.
He isn't asking, it's a rhetorical question. The intent of his statement wasn't to ask, but to state: "you are wrong, and here's why." So you would not be 'doing his work for him,' by addressing his point. You would be supporting your own point, which has been successfully attacked by a valid criticism.
When did the term 'intellectual property' become commonplace? It was recently, and it was a concerted effort by those holding vast quantities of said 'property' to redefine what the public thinks. Copyright, trademark, and patent do not fit the description of property. The are non-exclusionary. With any sort of real or personal property, if I sell it to you, I no longer have it.
You make the bald assertion that 99% of the population sees an analogy, do you have anything to back that up with, or are you just writing unsupported opinions? People in America believe in our constitution, which gives the government the right to grant limited term monopolies to creators, in order to further the arts and sciences, NOT to enrich the creator.
Get it? We are not Europe, we do not believe that creators have any inherent right to their creations. It is only to benefit society that we grant them such rights. Now, you may agree or disagree with that stance, but it is what the highest law of our land states. By conflating copyright, patent, and trademark with real property, the copyright owners are hoping that people will come to see these things as a type of property, deserving of the exact same protections as real or personal property.
Calling copyright, patent, and trademark 'Intellectual Property' is a part of a movement to destroy the basis of the American system and undermine the constitution. I think you are smart enough to know that, I think that's exactly what you want to have happen, that's why you engage in these kinds of arguments, and why you get so angry.
I was trying to be polite. Why must you continue to insult, are your arguments that weak? You are obviously so angered by my writing that you can't think straight. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to piss you off this time. But please try to remember what other people reading your response to me will think about you, your style of argumentation, and the validity of your thoughts. You aren't winning anyone over. People here don't buy emotional appeals, in fact, most here think less of you for using them.
Let me simplify things so your anger addled brain can understand: Superset terms should accurately reflect the most important properties of the referenced members of the set. 'Intellectual' isn't an accurate descriptor for the aforementioned items , and neither is 'property.'
If 'thought monopoly' doesn't work for you, how about 'expression monopoly?' That is an accurate superset term.
Why not respond to the posts that have proven the central thesis of your argument wrong? Habeas Corpus applies to everyone, as written in the constitution. Ever single person the Federal government comes into contact with. Everyone.
The reason you have not responded is that your post is professional propaganda paid for by the US government. You are an employee of a government agency with a sordid history of using propaganda against our citizens. Why should we believe you are not engaged in that activity right now? You know quite well how propaganda works: you've made your point, and made it first. You don't need to refute anything. The people who want to believe you will, and the people who don't, never would have. You've already won over the idiots and the easily swayed, so you've done your job and will certainly get kudos from your employer.
Are you saying that trademarks, patents, and copyright aren't different? They are all the same in one way: they are government granted monopolies on the expression of ideas. Patents and copyright are similar in another way, in that they serve a similar purpose, encouraging innovation. But they are different in most other ways. Trademarks are very different in almost all ways, as they serve the purpose of limiting fraud.
The main issue is, why would you need to refer to them under one superset term? The only real reason I can see is to advance the agenda of treating them all as if they really were property which they are not. They are government granted monopolies on the expression of ideas. Why not call them thought monopolies? That would be a more accurate blanket term, but it doesn't advance the real agenda, so of course it isn't used.
A pizza and a wife are similar in some ways, they are things that make one feel good, they are also things one can eat, and they both occasionally have sausage in them. Of those three shared definitions, few would argue that 'enjoyable things' would be a category one could lump them both in. Many people would find the other two shared definitions somewhat insulting, as they denigrate the true purpose of a mate. Lumping trademarks, copyright, and patents under the rubric 'Intellectual Property' denigrates their true purposes (preventing fraud in the first case, encouraging innovation in the latter two) and thus is offensive.
Does that help you understand why some people find the term 'intellectual property' offensive? I'm not asking you to agree with the argument, but you seemed confused as to what it was, and I hope this helps.
That is fascinating. One other interesting bit of recent research on sensing showed that tetrachromats, who have an extra color receptor in the eye, develop a matching sense processing region in the brain. If all they had was the extra receptor, or it didn't interface, or the brain wasn't plastic enough to develop new processing systems for new senses, they wouldn't actually see extra colors. But they do. So it seems the brain has a way of integrating extra senses that come along.
Ah yes, the dread Grill Fiend, introduced in the 3rd edition Monster Manual if I'm not mistaken. Wait, g-i-r-l f-r-i-e-n-d, what's that?
Touch isn't one sense. Temperature, surface detail, and pressure are separate parts of it. Besides balance, there's also proprioception, which lets you know where your body parts are. Then there's the sense of thoughtforms, the ability to know one's own thoughts and feelings, and the sense of self, which is the only thing that lets us do anything useful with our mental models of the world we build out of all the other senses by relating the model of the world to the model of the individual.
You may be surprised to learn there are more than four tastes, too. Besides the sour, salty, sweet, and bitter we're all familiar with, there's a fifth type of taste bud that detects glutamate, a flavor known as'umami' and characterized as 'savory' or 'meaty.'
Actually, I heard he was moving to Ford to help with their latest project.
Remember when blacks were considered property? Would you say that they shouldn't get to do what they want with other people's property? Meaning, themselves. The majority of Americans today are wage slaves, and have little say over what is done with the value they generate in society. That does suck. Corporations take what they want and have no serious consequences. I guess the rules depend on whether you are a human or a corporation, eh?
The thing that pissed me off the most is that his ideas were really good, and he had the capacity to create decent plots. But he kept stringing us along and his plots went to hell, and then there was basically nothing because his character development and skill as a wordsmith are seriously lacking.
Obviously, in Robert Jordan's case, you do NOT need to wrap it up. You can keep stringing people along until you pass away. You've got more stamina than I do, I stopped reading by book seven. It's not even the interminable and unchanging plots, it's his amateur command of the English language. I read one too many sentences describing a woman smoothing the front of her damn dress, flipped out, through book seven against a wall and haven't looked back.
Luckily for me, I had just swallowed my coffee before I got that joke...
Fortunately, in a billion years Andromeda will merge with the Milky Way so we'll be able to get genuine Andromedan cuisine right here in the newly formed Andromilkeday galaxy.
Luckily for me I have my boss convinced that Slashdot is crucial reading material. The migration is going very well, we're moving everything to IBM BladeCenters running VMWare running (mostly) Linux. We never were an MS shop (aside from the desktop), we've always had a mix of Novell, HP-UX, and AIX. We have been talking about ditching MS altogether, but we're a social services agency (Child, Youth, and Family Development) and a lot of our social workers in the field have custom Access (AAAAAaaarrrrrgh!) databases for generating reports. This is so wrong on so many levels, but so hard to transition away from. Last count, there were over 2,000 custom Ughcess databases pulling info from our main database server (bad, bad, bad practice , both from a data integrity and HIPPA standpoint) We're trying to get everybody using a web based report generator but that has been an uphill battle. Also, the state handles our email and they use Exchange so everyone is using the Outlook client. Aside from those issues, there's the usual .doc hell, but that's about all that's holding us back from moving to a fully open-source system.
Screw you twitter. I use Linux every day, at work and at home. I'm sysadmin for thirty Linux servers in a state department that is dedicated to switching to Linux, buttmunch.
I searched the MEPIS site for info on flash and found none. I gave useful info on digital photos in Linux. Why be such an ass towards me? I am now convinced you are a dirty Microsoft shill sent here to make open source look bad.
You're funny. I like you. But not enough to eat your asshole. I do own a hamster though, would you care to borrow it?
Oh twitter, you are so predictable. But to be fair, the aunt Tillys of the world could be just as happy with Linux as they are with Windows if it does what they want to do. What do they do with computers? They write email, chat, write and print out letters, view and print pictures... hey wait a minute, how easy is that last one? A quick visit to MEPIS help shows the camera part of it shouldn't be a problem. What about printers? Looks like MEPIS has a nice guide for that, too.
Things are looking good so far.
But what else do the aunt Tillys of the world like to do? Browse the web. Preferably any part of the web that requires a bazillion plugins like flash. And here MEPIS falls flat. Getting all the required add ons into any Linux based browser has always been a total pain in the ass, and quite frankly is one of the biggest barriers to Linux adoption by all the 'little users' of the world. These are the people who don't want to do much with their computers, and they have no particular loyalty towards nor skill with Microsoft's products. If only they could do all of the few things they actually want to do with computers on Linux, we'd have twenty million converts in a day. But multimedia playback and browser plug-in support have always been a nightmare under Linux, and those are two of the most important issues to the vast majority of potential adoptees.
I know what I did to piss SIIHP off, what did I ever do to you? Assuming you aren't lying about that AC comment's true authorship... Wait, okay, I read your only journal entry. Evidently you are just an irresponsible asshole.