the general libertarian take on government-granted monopolies (i.e., fewer as better than many, and none as definitely better than few) or on what a government is for (preventing an individual from imposing his will over another and another's property, and protecting explicitly-signed contracts). IP violates both things, so a libertarian defending it is quite clearly confused, or more likely just someone who didn't think things through.
No libertarian thinks that the government should grant no monopolies. All libertarians think that the government should enforce monopolies on property. That's the essential difference between libertarians and anarcho-socialists.
Since all libertarians want a monopoly on property, the only question is whether IP is property or not. If IP is property, and I outlined one way in which a very prominent libertarian philosopher argued that it is, then it is entirely proper under libertarian thought for the government to stop me from imposing my will over your intellectual property.
Well, you *do* know that most libertarians are anti-IP, right? We understand all IP to be government interfering with our private property.
That's not what I hear from the libertarians I talk to. They argue that the only rightful role of government is to defend property rights, of which intellectual property rights are one kind. A country without intellectual property is as barbaric as a country without physical property to the common libertarian. Ayn Rand was certainly a defender of IP, to her the work of the mind was the highest value, and investing that work is what made property property, intellectual or physical.
frankly...all completely decentralized systems for content distribution and sharing that I know of (like Freenet) are somewhat awkward and a real pain in the ass.
Gnutella worked really well from a technical perspective IIRC. Torrents got big because they were hostable on websites, which allowed for better organization and communities to form, and they downloaded from multiple streams so they were faster. But in terms of ease of use, I'd give Gnutella the edge.
But the most distressing takeaway is: âoe87% say these technologies are creating an âeasily distracted generation with short attention spansâ(TM) and 64% say todayâ(TM)s digital technologies âdo more to distract students than to help them academically.â
Looks like they're trying to dress up anecdotes as data. Attention spans can be measured. What is the average attention span of children who use digital technology N hours a week, and how does it differ from those who use digital technology M hours per week? Is it statistically significant?
Now yes, there are going to be confounding factors. But you don't have to eliminate confounding factors to show a difference. You only have to eliminate confounding factors to show that a difference that exists is only due to the independent variable. But no one has even shown that an actual difference exists yet.
Sure, there's a widespread belief, but is there data? Show me data that exposure to technology is negatively correlated with attention spans, then it might be worth doing something about it. Until then, it's just speculation.
Many things that are widely believed are not true. It's widely believed that the streets are more dangerous today than when we were kids. But crime rates are at a 30 year low, and juvenile crime is at all time lows. Widespread belief is NEVER justification to do ANYTHING except collect data.
That assumes that there are machines with unlocked bootloaders available. That may not always be the case. If Microsoft decides to apply the same terms to Windows on x86 that it is on ARM, that would pretty much destroy the market for general purpose computers. You'll probably be able to get one, but at a higher price, and you won't be able to run Windows on it.
That's the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic scenario is that once the general public doesn't need general purpose computers, they'll be classified as hacking tools and prohibited for anyone who isn't licensed. Sort of the way that lock pick tools are illegal for those without a locksmithing license.
Oregon has an initiative on the ballot to legalize recreational Cannabis. I hope you voted to be on the right side of history, and end the atrocity that is the war on drug users.
That's really hard to believe. A mayor can't get us into a war. A mayor can't appoint judges that will fundamentally change the way we interact with the government.
The crazy part about the Sovereign Person folks is that they think they can get away with it. An illegitimate government obviously doesn't care about sovereignty, so even if they are right they are going to get crushed.
As for the legitimacy of the US government, I've never seen a good argument for it, and even if you accept the Constitution as legitimate the US government oversteps its constitutional authority so often that you really can't consider it legitimate on that basis. The only real argument for the legitimacy of the US government is that they have the power to destroy you if you disobey. Only if you accept that "might makes right" can you consider the US government legitimate.
Also, consider getting shorter cables that are the correct length. You don't need a 15m ethernet cable that only goes 1m!!
If you have a 15M ethernet cable and you only need a 1M, and you don't have a crimper you can shorten the cable by doubling it back on itself several times and holding it together with cable ties.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't mean there are no grand conspiracies. That's just an explanation of how grand conspiracies actually happen.
the general libertarian take on government-granted monopolies (i.e., fewer as better than many, and none as definitely better than few) or on what a government is for (preventing an individual from imposing his will over another and another's property, and protecting explicitly-signed contracts). IP violates both things, so a libertarian defending it is quite clearly confused, or more likely just someone who didn't think things through.
No libertarian thinks that the government should grant no monopolies. All libertarians think that the government should enforce monopolies on property. That's the essential difference between libertarians and anarcho-socialists.
Since all libertarians want a monopoly on property, the only question is whether IP is property or not. If IP is property, and I outlined one way in which a very prominent libertarian philosopher argued that it is, then it is entirely proper under libertarian thought for the government to stop me from imposing my will over your intellectual property.
You'd rather wage actual class warfare on the poor than discuss class warfare. Gotcha.
That ship already sailed. The decision on Obamacare blew out all the constitutional limits on what the Federal Government can regulate
No, that was Wickard v Filburn (1942).
We gained one thing yesterday. The chance to have a real national conversation about Cannabis reform.
Well, you *do* know that most libertarians are anti-IP, right? We understand all IP to be government interfering with our private property.
That's not what I hear from the libertarians I talk to. They argue that the only rightful role of government is to defend property rights, of which intellectual property rights are one kind. A country without intellectual property is as barbaric as a country without physical property to the common libertarian. Ayn Rand was certainly a defender of IP, to her the work of the mind was the highest value, and investing that work is what made property property, intellectual or physical.
frankly...all completely decentralized systems for content distribution and sharing that I know of (like Freenet) are somewhat awkward and a real pain in the ass.
Gnutella worked really well from a technical perspective IIRC. Torrents got big because they were hostable on websites, which allowed for better organization and communities to form, and they downloaded from multiple streams so they were faster. But in terms of ease of use, I'd give Gnutella the edge.
That truth should be self evident.
The USA, which is engaged in a witch hunt against Dotcom.
You're both right.
Why yes, let's model our economy and education system after that from the gilded age.
Not really helpful.
Looks like they're trying to dress up anecdotes as data. Attention spans can be measured. What is the average attention span of children who use digital technology N hours a week, and how does it differ from those who use digital technology M hours per week? Is it statistically significant?
Now yes, there are going to be confounding factors. But you don't have to eliminate confounding factors to show a difference. You only have to eliminate confounding factors to show that a difference that exists is only due to the independent variable. But no one has even shown that an actual difference exists yet.
Any OEM who wants to put "Designed for Windows 10" on their product.
I'm not sure why I'd want to audio or video chat. Text chat is simply better.
Sure, there's a widespread belief, but is there data? Show me data that exposure to technology is negatively correlated with attention spans, then it might be worth doing something about it. Until then, it's just speculation.
Many things that are widely believed are not true. It's widely believed that the streets are more dangerous today than when we were kids. But crime rates are at a 30 year low, and juvenile crime is at all time lows. Widespread belief is NEVER justification to do ANYTHING except collect data.
What's wrong with IRC?
It would destroy Microsoft's position on the market for general purpose computers.
Microsoft doesn't care about general purpose computers, they care about windows boxes.
Wow, you must live in some fucked up country.
It varies from state to state. In some states, mere possession of lockpicks is considered evidence of intent to burglarize .
That assumes that there are machines with unlocked bootloaders available. That may not always be the case. If Microsoft decides to apply the same terms to Windows on x86 that it is on ARM, that would pretty much destroy the market for general purpose computers. You'll probably be able to get one, but at a higher price, and you won't be able to run Windows on it.
That's the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic scenario is that once the general public doesn't need general purpose computers, they'll be classified as hacking tools and prohibited for anyone who isn't licensed. Sort of the way that lock pick tools are illegal for those without a locksmithing license.
x86 is on the way out for Microsoft too.
Oregon has an initiative on the ballot to legalize recreational Cannabis. I hope you voted to be on the right side of history, and end the atrocity that is the war on drug users.
Because democracy is an illusion in the US, no one actually cares whether it's efficient or accurate.
That's really hard to believe. A mayor can't get us into a war. A mayor can't appoint judges that will fundamentally change the way we interact with the government.
I guess I wasn't aware that they made laptops without docks. I pretty much only buy thinkpads, and they've always had dock connectors.
The crazy part about the Sovereign Person folks is that they think they can get away with it. An illegitimate government obviously doesn't care about sovereignty, so even if they are right they are going to get crushed.
As for the legitimacy of the US government, I've never seen a good argument for it, and even if you accept the Constitution as legitimate the US government oversteps its constitutional authority so often that you really can't consider it legitimate on that basis. The only real argument for the legitimacy of the US government is that they have the power to destroy you if you disobey. Only if you accept that "might makes right" can you consider the US government legitimate.
Why not buy a dock and leave it plugged in?
Also, consider getting shorter cables that are the correct length. You don't need a 15m ethernet cable that only goes 1m!!
If you have a 15M ethernet cable and you only need a 1M, and you don't have a crimper you can shorten the cable by doubling it back on itself several times and holding it together with cable ties.