Someone invented something which otherwise would not have existed,
Someone invented something which otherwise someone else would have invented sooner or later. Extremely likely sooner if history of inventions tells us anything.
That's how capitalism works
Yes
- the free trade of commodities.
No, only tradee. It is designation of non physical goods as capital to be owned and traded. A fundamental part of capitalism, but completely opposite of any free market theory that deals in distribution of scarce goods.
Getting rid of fractional reserve banking may be politically impossible.
What you end up with is basically a currency under Soviet style command economy control. Not really something to look forward to if you have any interest at all in free markets. Much better to have post World War 2 type regulation that minimizes the amount of boom money that gets badly invested.
Have been removed for the past 30 years by the Republicans
Correction...by the Republicans and Democrats. The market fundamentalist movement to remove regulation has had bipartisan support, because "the market is never wrong". A very dangerous memo as it is true in a tactical sense, but destructive and insane in a strategic sense.
1. Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills 2. Gas Supplement.
2. Use supplementary energy production that can more easily turned on/off. (Gas being one example) 3. Have some energy intensive industry that can more easily be turned on/off. 4. Spread production over a larger area to reduce variations in energy production. 5. Add in stable nuclear production to reduce the effect of the more variable energy production methods.
And the truth is probably a mix of all of the above.
What right do you have to impose restrict laws that decrease the wealth of the entire society, all while using lierspeak by equalizing copying with taking?
shouldn't content producers, artists, programmers, and basically anyone producing something have a right to their work?
It is important to separate copyright into commercial and moral rights. It is very possible to want to give copyright holders less commercial rights, while keeping or even strengthening the moral rights such as the right to be recognized as the creator of a work. In my opinion, moral rights should also not be for sale. (from my understanding, they aren't here in Sweden)
If there weren't copyrights, there couldn't be GPL either, nor Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works and Share Alike licenses.
This falls under the discussion of what kind of moral rights a creator should have to restrict a work from being used for specific purposes. I personally feel that GPL/Share Alike are too far reaching. If the author should have rights to restrict the active reusage of a work, it needs to be fairly limited. But this is something that is always up for debate.
Wouldn't the world be less controlling if the authors actually had some saying over their works instead of being forced to lose control over their work?
As authors generally sell the commercial rights, the only control they have in the first place is through moral rights. But more generally. Why is it considered less controlling when author stops someone from making a derivative work?
it might be interesting to consider where better than 90% of new drug research and development occurs. If you guessed 'the United States' then you were right.
If you guessed that this was a made up statistic, you guessed right.
Of course, the fact that lawyers are needed at all for anything but basic consultations, indicates a completely broken justice system, a system where no one is interested in truth or fairness, but only in their side winning.
And yes, that applies not only to the US, but most of the modern world.
No-one standing for plagiarism assumes that people have some kind of moral grounding, rather than the more likely (and already existing) situation of people not caring about morals as long as they they can get their grubby little mits on some free stuff.
The Swedish pirate party doesn't stand for plagiarism. It wants to keep the moral parts of the copyright law intact. And I sincerely hope that Pirate Parties in other countries are intending the same.
Of course, I can understand the confusion, since many other countries such as the US currently don't have the concepts of commercial and moral copyright and instead bunch it all together into a a single group of laws, making it difficult to explain how you could reduce the right to commercial exploitation while maintaining the right to be attributed for the creation of a specific work of art.
The moral copyright can not be sold, it can not be traded and it doesn't have to cease just because the commercial copyright ceases. When you hear Swedish pirate party people talking about a 5 year copyright, they are specifically talking about the commercial copyright, as here in Sweden there is no time limit on moral copyright at all. In other countries where time limits do exist, you would have to have different time limits for the two types, or change some moral rights so that they don't have any time limit at all.
The amount of time I spend locking the time of the cashier (and therefore the line) is minimal. Simply, do the whole prepay procedure (swipe card, enter code) while the cashier is going through your goods. Once it is time to pay, all you have to do is press a single button.
The problem is not with current technology. It is with people who aren't using it efficiently, such as those who wait to swipe the card and input the code until after all the goods have been processed. Of course, if you can't do it like mentioned above in your country, then it is a problem with technology. But not one of the technology being outdated, but one of it being badly designed.
There seems to be a large portion of people who simply can't tell the difference between market value and real value. They think that if you can't make money of it, then it is worthless. To them, oxygen is worthless because no one pays for it. In reality, having large differences between real value and market value is generally preferable as it implies an abundance of goods.
The scary thing is that these people seem to have a great amount of influence in corporate and governmental circles, under the flag of the free market. When in reality, they are no more free market than a full fledged communist. (No offense meant to the communist. He is'nt the one sailing under false flags)
Now????? What the fuck have you been smoking. Eve has always been a super hardcore game. Huge losses with failure. Huge amounts of grinding to get anywhere. Free PvP in a huge portion of the world, which also happens to be the most important portion. A "leveling" system that heavily favors those who have played the longest. The drama that comes with all of that. And on top of that, developers that directly interfere in the game.
I would never recommend Eve as a game to anyone because of that. Eve is basically your modern day hardcore MUD. Suitable only to a small minority of people. But they have done well, building on that small niche.
It is like backyard basketball, either you play for fun or you play seriously. In the first, it is a friendly match between friends and the outcome is irrelevant. In the latter you will go up against people who do not know you, don't care about you and just want to show you who is best. And you might wind up hurt. uhm.. -might +probably will
en let's just cut the BS
Yeah, let's cut the bullshit. Those who live for the kill are simply shitheads, all of them, no exception. They are no different than the dirty politicians taking bribes or lying, thieving bankers. They don't create, they just destroy. And yes, a lot of sport elites are in this group also.
The real winners are those who live for the action. Their objective is not to defeat the opponent by any means necessary. Instead it is to create a masterpiece from the actual experience. Most winners will do their best to stay away from shitheads, because shitheads simply ruins your inspiration and experience.
Fortunately, shitheads are mostly attracted to other shitheads and are easy to spot, because of their radiance of a false sence of self importance combined with gloating and talking down on others. That makes them easy to avoid for those how actually prefer to create instead of destroy.
It has changed a lot. There are about 25 more PvP realms than PvE realms in Europe, but the population figures are quite grim for PvP realms. Now, I am using warcraftrealms for these figures, so they aren't offical or really accurate as it depends on actually people using an addon and submitting data. But they do tell an interesting story.
Out of the top 50 realms only 10 are PvP. On the other, hand out of bottom 50, 36 are PvP realms.
Really, that makes you sound like an RIAA troll. That is just the latest RIAA term of the month that is a complete bullshit lie. Distribution rights are less expensive. Or do you actually believe that Apple pays more than $1 for each song they distribute via the iTunes store.
How much is it worth if you can't sell it? Corollary to the fundamental theory of commerce: If you can't find a buyer at any price, the thing is worthless.
And this is why capitalism is coming crashing down. People actually have started to buy into this bullshit. Essentially trying to equalize value with market value, even though that is a complete perversion of any real economic theory. Of course, it is even worse when you see real economists doing the same mistake.
If you can't find a buyer at any price, it can mean
* That the item is worthless. * That similar items are abundantly available (each with its own worth, creating huge total wealth). * That the item is only valuable to you. * That potential buyers don't know about, trust or otherwise have problem interacting with the seller.
And as soon as you add even the slightest price, you also add this one
* The value-price ratio is not good enough for any of the sellers compared to competing goods.
This last one is less important for businesses that only need a ratio that is enough above 1 to make a decent profit, and more important to consumers that regularly have to make judgments about what to buy or not based on perceived value-price ratios.
It doesn't need to be reworded. People who interpret things stop need to be twisting around.
The US constitution is the old legacy program that receives the occasional update to fix compatibility issues, but that hasn't received a security update for ages. The program can't be replaced, because lots of other software depends on it, most of the users are comfortable with it and would raise hell if anyone touched their precious program, and it is actually a decent functional program. The problem is that there are lots of exploits available that can cause the system it runs on to become unstable.
Heck, look no further than your own post. You are trying to exploit the vagueness yourself by providing your own interpretation of the constitution that fits your viewpoint.
Yup. And it actually works fairly well as long as you have checks in place to ensure that lending is done strictly for productive purposes. In fact, it is very much a free market way of determining how much money needs to be in existence. It is usually preferable to having the government trying to somehow plan the amount needed, or using a near fixed amount of currency.
Now, there are two big failures in the system. First, as I have mentioned, you need adequate checks on where money is being lent. This is specifically to prevent investment bubbles (housing, stocks) and predatory lending that have a tendency to occur.
Secondly, there is no reason why the government who is supplying the backing should exist within the system. Having the government lend from banks provide no advantage in the system, except to enrich bankers and make the next generation poorer. In fact, government loans is directly against the fundamental principles that founded the US, namely no taxation without representation. As children don't have real representation, it should be illegal to tax them via loans that technically are future obligations.
People complain that the game is too easy (even if they never tried the hard modes).
The problem with World of Warcraft is that the last expansion truly made the game too easy in several ways.
Outside of dungeons, mobs have simply become ants. Annoying but 100% non-lethal. You almost have to disconnect while fighting multiple mobs to even have a chance of dying. In normal dungeons as well as heroics to some degree, the preferred strategy has become to basically collect as many mobs as the tank (and healer) can handle, have him keep them occupied (which is very simple nowadays) while the rest of the party uses multi target effect to kill them all at once. You have mages who have leveled all the way to level 80 and don't even know how to use the Sheep spell in dungeons, not to mention more advanced skills such as counter spell.
For leveling characters, they have made leveling easier, not only by reducing experience needed (which is a good thing to reduce boring grind) but also by improving gear rewards and reducing effort needed to clear a dungeon while simultaneously nerfing any challenging mobs outside of dungeons so that a monkey could level a character to level 80 using only his tail. This wouldn't be so bad except if you could only challenge yourself by fighting more difficult mobs. But the experience as well as level system in WoW highly encourages people to fight mobs that are at most the same level as yourself, or preferably one or two levels below if they want to level quickly.
Right now I am not subscribed, but depending on what I hear about it, I may join a month once WoW:Cataclysm comes out to see if it is fixed. But I don't have high hopes. The Blizzard WoW team has lost touch with reality when it comes to providing difficulty in many aspects of the game.
Just as a matter of interest, why do you hate market solutions so much?
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). I prefer market economy over plan economy any day of the week. Just like I prefer a plain tax over a cap & trade scheme any day of the week.
Of course, you should not try to make things simpler than they are. But cap & trade definitely has the trademark smell of middlemen scheming to leech money of the system.
Are you some kind of socialist?
I very much prefer moderate socialism to destructive corrupt capitalism. But no, I am not a socialist or communist or capitalist. I prefer each idea to stand on its own, depending on time and place, instead of supporting or opposing it based on which -ism it is close to.
At least it's good that you count the damages due to distributing, rather than just the initial downloading (as NewYorkLawyer insists on doing!)
No. What NewYorkLawyer is counting is exactly the same. Just using a 1:1 ratio.
Downloading costs RIAA nothing from you, because it is the one you are downloading from who is costing them money. You can't double dip. Choose which costs money, the downloading or uploading, or if you want, a ratio of the two.
Your 1:1 ratio is talking about number of bytes transferred. Your calculation then presupposes that the penalty for copying half a work be half as much as the penalty for copying a full work. I don't believe that's right. So I'd take the average number of peers that you upload to, which from what I've seen is usually closer to 50. So, $11,000.
In a P2P network, only the amount of data you share matters, not how many people you share with, as data flows freely between peers. In some non-P2P circumstances it may differ (copy 10 important pages of a book, a 1000 times over). But with P2P, the data is uniformly distributed across the system.
5-6 of the points you listed are specifically stuff that affects others.
And the remaining few points, suicide, drug use, nudity and partially public urination (depending on where it is done) is stuff that people regularly argue for to be decriminalized as it doesn't harm others.
Please go fuck yourself, fucker. And sorry about the language, but I have to keep it simple for a fucker like you to understand how fucking stupid you are.
Fuck, why am I responding to a troll. Go and die shithead.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone invented something which otherwise would not have existed,
Someone invented something which otherwise someone else would have invented sooner or later. Extremely likely sooner if history of inventions tells us anything.
That's how capitalism works
Yes
- the free trade of commodities.
No, only tradee. It is designation of non physical goods as capital to be owned and traded. A fundamental part of capitalism, but completely opposite of any free market theory that deals in distribution of scarce goods.
the only thing worse than a mistake is over-correcting for it.
OK.
a world without any copyright/patent law is a sad, sad world. kinda like a world where stealing or murder are legal.
Although from this I guess over-correcting analogies is perfectly fine.
Getting rid of fractional reserve banking may be politically impossible.
What you end up with is basically a currency under Soviet style command economy control. Not really something to look forward to if you have any interest at all in free markets. Much better to have post World War 2 type regulation that minimizes the amount of boom money that gets badly invested.
Have been removed for the past 30 years by the Republicans
Correction...by the Republicans and Democrats. The market fundamentalist movement to remove regulation has had bipartisan support, because "the market is never wrong". A very dangerous memo as it is true in a tactical sense, but destructive and insane in a strategic sense.
There are two solutions to this problems:
1. Giant Batteries/ Flywheels/ Water storage hills
2. Gas Supplement.
2. Use supplementary energy production that can more easily turned on/off. (Gas being one example)
3. Have some energy intensive industry that can more easily be turned on/off.
4. Spread production over a larger area to reduce variations in energy production.
5. Add in stable nuclear production to reduce the effect of the more variable energy production methods.
And the truth is probably a mix of all of the above.
What right do you have to impose restrict laws that decrease the wealth of the entire society, all while using lierspeak by equalizing copying with taking?
shouldn't content producers, artists, programmers, and basically anyone producing something have a right to their work?
It is important to separate copyright into commercial and moral rights. It is very possible to want to give copyright holders less commercial rights, while keeping or even strengthening the moral rights such as the right to be recognized as the creator of a work. In my opinion, moral rights should also not be for sale. (from my understanding, they aren't here in Sweden)
If there weren't copyrights, there couldn't be GPL either, nor Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works and Share Alike licenses.
This falls under the discussion of what kind of moral rights a creator should have to restrict a work from being used for specific purposes. I personally feel that GPL/Share Alike are too far reaching. If the author should have rights to restrict the active reusage of a work, it needs to be fairly limited. But this is something that is always up for debate.
Wouldn't the world be less controlling if the authors actually had some saying over their works instead of being forced to lose control over their work?
As authors generally sell the commercial rights, the only control they have in the first place is through moral rights. But more generally. Why is it considered less controlling when author stops someone from making a derivative work?
My heart isn't needlessly there. So could you please explain how your post in anyway is a relevant reply to the grandparent post?
it might be interesting to consider where better than 90% of new drug research and development occurs. If you guessed 'the United States' then you were right.
If you guessed that this was a made up statistic, you guessed right.
Of course, the fact that lawyers are needed at all for anything but basic consultations, indicates a completely broken justice system, a system where no one is interested in truth or fairness, but only in their side winning.
And yes, that applies not only to the US, but most of the modern world.
No-one standing for plagiarism assumes that people have some kind of moral grounding, rather than the more likely (and already existing) situation of people not caring about morals as long as they they can get their grubby little mits on some free stuff.
The Swedish pirate party doesn't stand for plagiarism. It wants to keep the moral parts of the copyright law intact. And I sincerely hope that Pirate Parties in other countries are intending the same.
Of course, I can understand the confusion, since many other countries such as the US currently don't have the concepts of commercial and moral copyright and instead bunch it all together into a a single group of laws, making it difficult to explain how you could reduce the right to commercial exploitation while maintaining the right to be attributed for the creation of a specific work of art.
The moral copyright can not be sold, it can not be traded and it doesn't have to cease just because the commercial copyright ceases. When you hear Swedish pirate party people talking about a 5 year copyright, they are specifically talking about the commercial copyright, as here in Sweden there is no time limit on moral copyright at all. In other countries where time limits do exist, you would have to have different time limits for the two types, or change some moral rights so that they don't have any time limit at all.
The amount of time I spend locking the time of the cashier (and therefore the line) is minimal. Simply, do the whole prepay procedure (swipe card, enter code) while the cashier is going through your goods. Once it is time to pay, all you have to do is press a single button.
The problem is not with current technology. It is with people who aren't using it efficiently, such as those who wait to swipe the card and input the code until after all the goods have been processed. Of course, if you can't do it like mentioned above in your country, then it is a problem with technology. But not one of the technology being outdated, but one of it being badly designed.
There seems to be a large portion of people who simply can't tell the difference between market value and real value. They think that if you can't make money of it, then it is worthless. To them, oxygen is worthless because no one pays for it. In reality, having large differences between real value and market value is generally preferable as it implies an abundance of goods.
The scary thing is that these people seem to have a great amount of influence in corporate and governmental circles, under the flag of the free market. When in reality, they are no more free market than a full fledged communist. (No offense meant to the communist. He is'nt the one sailing under false flags)
I Guess Now
Now????? What the fuck have you been smoking. Eve has always been a super hardcore game. Huge losses with failure. Huge amounts of grinding to get anywhere. Free PvP in a huge portion of the world, which also happens to be the most important portion. A "leveling" system that heavily favors those who have played the longest. The drama that comes with all of that. And on top of that, developers that directly interfere in the game.
I would never recommend Eve as a game to anyone because of that. Eve is basically your modern day hardcore MUD. Suitable only to a small minority of people. But they have done well, building on that small niche.
It is like backyard basketball, either you play for fun or you play seriously. .. -might +probably will
In the first, it is a friendly match between friends and the outcome is irrelevant.
In the latter you will go up against people who do not know you, don't care about you and just want to show you who is best. And you might wind up hurt.
uhm
en let's just cut the BS
Yeah, let's cut the bullshit. Those who live for the kill are simply shitheads, all of them, no exception. They are no different than the dirty politicians taking bribes or lying, thieving bankers. They don't create, they just destroy. And yes, a lot of sport elites are in this group also.
The real winners are those who live for the action. Their objective is not to defeat the opponent by any means necessary. Instead it is to create a masterpiece from the actual experience. Most winners will do their best to stay away from shitheads, because shitheads simply ruins your inspiration and experience.
Fortunately, shitheads are mostly attracted to other shitheads and are easy to spot, because of their radiance of a false sence of self importance combined with gloating and talking down on others. That makes them easy to avoid for those how actually prefer to create instead of destroy.
is that some people have no business playing any MMOs
And you would be one of them
. I don't know if it has changed since then.
It has changed a lot. There are about 25 more PvP realms than PvE realms in Europe, but the population figures are quite grim for PvP realms. Now, I am using warcraftrealms for these figures, so they aren't offical or really accurate as it depends on actually people using an addon and submitting data. But they do tell an interesting story.
Out of the top 50 realms only 10 are PvP. On the other, hand out of bottom 50, 36 are PvP realms.
Distribution rights are far more expensive.
Really, that makes you sound like an RIAA troll. That is just the latest RIAA term of the month that is a complete bullshit lie. Distribution rights are less expensive. Or do you actually believe that Apple pays more than $1 for each song they distribute via the iTunes store.
How much is it worth if you can't sell it? Corollary to the fundamental theory of commerce: If you can't find a buyer at any price, the thing is worthless.
And this is why capitalism is coming crashing down. People actually have started to buy into this bullshit. Essentially trying to equalize value with market value, even though that is a complete perversion of any real economic theory. Of course, it is even worse when you see real economists doing the same mistake.
If you can't find a buyer at any price, it can mean
* That the item is worthless.
* That similar items are abundantly available (each with its own worth, creating huge total wealth).
* That the item is only valuable to you.
* That potential buyers don't know about, trust or otherwise have problem interacting with the seller.
And as soon as you add even the slightest price, you also add this one
* The value-price ratio is not good enough for any of the sellers compared to competing goods.
This last one is less important for businesses that only need a ratio that is enough above 1 to make a decent profit, and more important to consumers that regularly have to make judgments about what to buy or not based on perceived value-price ratios.
It doesn't need to be reworded. People who interpret things stop need to be twisting around.
The US constitution is the old legacy program that receives the occasional update to fix compatibility issues, but that hasn't received a security update for ages. The program can't be replaced, because lots of other software depends on it, most of the users are comfortable with it and would raise hell if anyone touched their precious program, and it is actually a decent functional program. The problem is that there are lots of exploits available that can cause the system it runs on to become unstable.
Heck, look no further than your own post. You are trying to exploit the vagueness yourself by providing your own interpretation of the constitution that fits your viewpoint.
Yup. And it actually works fairly well as long as you have checks in place to ensure that lending is done strictly for productive purposes. In fact, it is very much a free market way of determining how much money needs to be in existence. It is usually preferable to having the government trying to somehow plan the amount needed, or using a near fixed amount of currency.
Now, there are two big failures in the system. First, as I have mentioned, you need adequate checks on where money is being lent. This is specifically to prevent investment bubbles (housing, stocks) and predatory lending that have a tendency to occur.
Secondly, there is no reason why the government who is supplying the backing should exist within the system. Having the government lend from banks provide no advantage in the system, except to enrich bankers and make the next generation poorer. In fact, government loans is directly against the fundamental principles that founded the US, namely no taxation without representation. As children don't have real representation, it should be illegal to tax them via loans that technically are future obligations.
People complain that the game is too easy (even if they never tried the hard modes).
The problem with World of Warcraft is that the last expansion truly made the game too easy in several ways.
Outside of dungeons, mobs have simply become ants. Annoying but 100% non-lethal. You almost have to disconnect while fighting multiple mobs to even have a chance of dying. In normal dungeons as well as heroics to some degree, the preferred strategy has become to basically collect as many mobs as the tank (and healer) can handle, have him keep them occupied (which is very simple nowadays) while the rest of the party uses multi target effect to kill them all at once. You have mages who have leveled all the way to level 80 and don't even know how to use the Sheep spell in dungeons, not to mention more advanced skills such as counter spell.
For leveling characters, they have made leveling easier, not only by reducing experience needed (which is a good thing to reduce boring grind) but also by improving gear rewards and reducing effort needed to clear a dungeon while simultaneously nerfing any challenging mobs outside of dungeons so that a monkey could level a character to level 80 using only his tail. This wouldn't be so bad except if you could only challenge yourself by fighting more difficult mobs. But the experience as well as level system in WoW highly encourages people to fight mobs that are at most the same level as yourself, or preferably one or two levels below if they want to level quickly.
Right now I am not subscribed, but depending on what I hear about it, I may join a month once WoW:Cataclysm comes out to see if it is fixed. But I don't have high hopes. The Blizzard WoW team has lost touch with reality when it comes to providing difficulty in many aspects of the game.
Just as a matter of interest, why do you hate market solutions so much?
KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). I prefer market economy over plan economy any day of the week. Just like I prefer a plain tax over a cap & trade scheme any day of the week.
Of course, you should not try to make things simpler than they are. But cap & trade definitely has the trademark smell of middlemen scheming to leech money of the system.
Are you some kind of socialist?
I very much prefer moderate socialism to destructive corrupt capitalism. But no, I am not a socialist or communist or capitalist. I prefer each idea to stand on its own, depending on time and place, instead of supporting or opposing it based on which -ism it is close to.
At least it's good that you count the damages due to distributing, rather than just the initial downloading (as NewYorkLawyer insists on doing!)
No. What NewYorkLawyer is counting is exactly the same. Just using a 1:1 ratio.
Downloading costs RIAA nothing from you, because it is the one you are downloading from who is costing them money. You can't double dip. Choose which costs money, the downloading or uploading, or if you want, a ratio of the two.
Your 1:1 ratio is talking about number of bytes transferred. Your calculation then presupposes that the penalty for copying half a work be half as much as the penalty for copying a full work. I don't believe that's right. So I'd take the average number of peers that you upload to, which from what I've seen is usually closer to 50. So, $11,000.
In a P2P network, only the amount of data you share matters, not how many people you share with, as data flows freely between peers. In some non-P2P circumstances it may differ (copy 10 important pages of a book, a 1000 times over). But with P2P, the data is uniformly distributed across the system.
How fucking stupid are you.
5-6 of the points you listed are specifically stuff that affects others.
And the remaining few points, suicide, drug use, nudity and partially public urination (depending on where it is done) is stuff that people regularly argue for to be decriminalized as it doesn't harm others.
Please go fuck yourself, fucker. And sorry about the language, but I have to keep it simple for a fucker like you to understand how fucking stupid you are.
Fuck, why am I responding to a troll. Go and die shithead.