And then all those millions of people just steal* my creation from me (they want it; they can afford it; they have just learned they don't have to pay), I haven't been deprived of anything**? What planet are you from?
Yes, in my opinion, what you have been deprived of is far less important than physical property rights. You still have the full use of your creation. What you have been deprived of is a situation where your creation was artificially scarce. And for this reason the penalties, if any, should be less than for physical theft because the scarcity is not a natural one imposed by the universe but an artificial one imposed by man.
Yeah, it's been said a billion times before. Although I see you're a researcher, so let me give you an analogy. Your stealing my years of hard work is roughly analogous to you getting a precision lobotomy (magical, if you will) that wipes out everything you have learned and worked for academically since high school. Your hard work? Good decisions? Gone. You're now like everyone else.
Nice analogy, but it does not fit: If someone "steals" my intellectual property, none of my hard work or unique decisions are gone. If anything, they have been put to use to serve a higher purpose than myself. (As an aside, you should note that this is what copyright is for in the first place, to serve the greater good of society.) I fully support open distribution of scientific research; I have published under open content licenses in the past and plan to in the future. I have absolutely no problem with my research being widely available and unencumbered. If that is receiving a lobotomy, then I say "bring it on!"
Patents/copyrights/etc are still something that has ownership, can be exchanged for goods or services, can be leased, and is legally recognized as a thing of value.
All very true, however intellectual "property" is different in that it has no physical form. This is significant. It means that I can make a copy of your intellectual "property" and not deprive you of the use of it. This is (obviously) not possible to do with physical property. And indeed, this is where the moral and legal basis for outlawing theft comes from, and, in my opinion, is why violation of copyright should have nowhere near the same penalty as theft of physical property.
I would posit that if it were possible to make an exact copy of your physical property without depriving you of its use (using some sort of Star-Trek-style replicator) that this sort of "theft" should not be a crime.
It's fairly simple: stop employing them. As long as there exist companies who are advantaged by illegally employing illegal immigrants (because they can pay them less, don't have to give them health benefits, can fire them at will, etc.) there will be an illegal immigrant problem.
It's pretty vicious really, because these same employers don't want legal immigrants, whom they would have to pay fairly. They want the immigrants and they want them illegal. And they don't especially care that you, the tax payer, have to foot the bill for services to them.
...they did this out of concern for their bottom line, not because they are 'teh r0x0r [sic] enlightened company who has seen that open source is the way of teh future'...
2.6 is officially the stable kernel tree, however 2.7 has not branched yet. Therefore new features are still going into 2.6 rather than just bugfixes. I'm not entirely sure why Linus is doing this, except perhaps that he wishes 2.6 to aquire more features first. As it is, many users are waiting for 2.7 to branch before switching over. So what's in a name, eh?
In any event, your oh-so-witty response doesn't answer my question. To quote from "the article":
Considering that administrators of smaller, although no less significant, communities such as ShareConnector were actually arrested, Sloncek decided to take SuprNova.org off line voluntarily. This will allow him and his fellow administrative staff to concentrate on other projects without worry of prosecution.
That seems pretty clear to me: the pressure is being applied to those who run index sites such as ShareReactor and SuprNova. Therefore I ask, again, how is this suing the individual file traders?
"Each dimension of cursor movement... was controlled by a linear equation in which the independent variable was a weighted combination of the amplitudes in a mu (8-12 Hz) or beta (18-26 Hz) rhythm frequency band over the right and left sensorimotor cortices."
(Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Dennis J. McFarland. Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans. PNAS published December 7, 2004, 10.1073/pnas.0403504101)
From the methods and diagrams in the article looks like the slower mu oscillations moved the cursor in the horrizontal axis and the vaster beta osicllations moved the cursor in the vertical axis.
Here, it clearly states that the electrodes are on the surface of the brain. Therefore, the use of surface electrodes in this new article (about the WU, experiment this time) is not new. So, where's the development?
I agree that the article is misleading and the two sound the same but they are actually somewhat different: Wolpaw and colleagues are using flat electrodes placed on the surface of the brain. The technique is called electrocorticographic recordings (or eCog.) Donoghue and colleagues are using sharp electrodes inserted through the dura and pia into the brain as much as 1 or 1.5 mm deep. You could call this technique 'multiple cortical extracellular electrodes.'
ECogs spatially average the activity of many neurons. It's similar to an electroencephalogram (EEG) but the skull is not in the way to attenuate the signal and there is a higher spatial resolution. However with extracellular electrodes it is possible to resolve the action potentials of individual cells.
In addition to the facts stated above, a paper and an electronic record of all cast ballots are retrieved from each individual voting machine following an election.
So what does it print out exactly, "following an election"? Why should we believe this any more than what the machine displays electronically? Anything that it prints out could have been altered between the time the vote was cast and the time the paper trail is printed. In other words, completely useless.
Your history lesson is sound for P2P file sharing. Economic pressures can result in some nice innovation, eh?
However, as far as telephony goes, P2P makes sense as well. If you want to use the client-server model, you need, well, a server. Netmeeting for example requires this-- you connect to a server which handles directory info. A P2P VOIP network could decentralize this.
It's worth noting the the whole concept of "objective" reporting is a kind of by-product of mass advertising: If you want to advertise your product across the whole country (or globally) you probably also want to offend as few people as possible with the content of your advertising delivery mechanism. Thus, the news media tries to present an "objective" perspective which is minimally offensive to all possible parties.
Prior to mass advertising the media was far more biased. There were liberal newspapers, there were conservative newspapers, etc. Everyone knew the bias existed and it really was not a problem. That's not to say that everything was better than now, there was yellow journalism and other forms of unprofessionalism, but it certainly was different.
Anyway, it is worth noting that the media is in a post-objective period these days. I believe the popular style is one called, "Fairness and Balance.";)
Re:GMail Invites...
on
Mechanical Pong
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, in my opinion, what you have been deprived of is far less important than physical property rights. You still have the full use of your creation. What you have been deprived of is a situation where your creation was artificially scarce. And for this reason the penalties, if any, should be less than for physical theft because the scarcity is not a natural one imposed by the universe but an artificial one imposed by man.
Yeah, it's been said a billion times before. Although I see you're a researcher, so let me give you an analogy. Your stealing my years of hard work is roughly analogous to you getting a precision lobotomy (magical, if you will) that wipes out everything you have learned and worked for academically since high school. Your hard work? Good decisions? Gone. You're now like everyone else.
Nice analogy, but it does not fit: If someone "steals" my intellectual property, none of my hard work or unique decisions are gone. If anything, they have been put to use to serve a higher purpose than myself. (As an aside, you should note that this is what copyright is for in the first place, to serve the greater good of society.) I fully support open distribution of scientific research; I have published under open content licenses in the past and plan to in the future. I have absolutely no problem with my research being widely available and unencumbered. If that is receiving a lobotomy, then I say "bring it on!"
All very true, however intellectual "property" is different in that it has no physical form. This is significant. It means that I can make a copy of your intellectual "property" and not deprive you of the use of it. This is (obviously) not possible to do with physical property. And indeed, this is where the moral and legal basis for outlawing theft comes from, and, in my opinion, is why violation of copyright should have nowhere near the same penalty as theft of physical property.
I would posit that if it were possible to make an exact copy of your physical property without depriving you of its use (using some sort of Star-Trek-style replicator) that this sort of "theft" should not be a crime.
It's pretty vicious really, because these same employers don't want legal immigrants, whom they would have to pay fairly. They want the immigrants and they want them illegal. And they don't especially care that you, the tax payer, have to foot the bill for services to them.
Note that the two are not mutually exclusive...
Yes. In Japan the population is expected to do just that.
2.6 is officially the stable kernel tree, however 2.7 has not branched yet. Therefore new features are still going into 2.6 rather than just bugfixes. I'm not entirely sure why Linus is doing this, except perhaps that he wishes 2.6 to aquire more features first. As it is, many users are waiting for 2.7 to branch before switching over. So what's in a name, eh?
In any event, your oh-so-witty response doesn't answer my question. To quote from "the article":
That seems pretty clear to me: the pressure is being applied to those who run index sites such as ShareReactor and SuprNova. Therefore I ask, again, how is this suing the individual file traders?
All well and good, but how is taking down suprnova or torrentbits "suing the individual file traders"?
(Jonathan R. Wolpaw and Dennis J. McFarland. Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans. PNAS published December 7, 2004, 10.1073/pnas.0403504101)
From the methods and diagrams in the article looks like the slower mu oscillations moved the cursor in the horrizontal axis and the vaster beta osicllations moved the cursor in the vertical axis.
ECogs spatially average the activity of many neurons. It's similar to an electroencephalogram (EEG) but the skull is not in the way to attenuate the signal and there is a higher spatial resolution. However with extracellular electrodes it is possible to resolve the action potentials of individual cells.
WTF is a "goldlist"?
suprnova can and will be replaced. make no mistake about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of this date, PHP5 is not even in unstable!
It's not exactly the same as IMSmarter, but i've become a giant fan of bittlbee + irssi + screen.
woot!
Maybe easy to do, but why do it? Why should anyone in Australia concern themselves with the laws of another nation?
In addition to the facts stated above, a paper and an electronic record of all cast ballots are retrieved from each individual voting machine following an election. So what does it print out exactly, "following an election"? Why should we believe this any more than what the machine displays electronically? Anything that it prints out could have been altered between the time the vote was cast and the time the paper trail is printed. In other words, completely useless.
However, as far as telephony goes, P2P makes sense as well. If you want to use the client-server model, you need, well, a server. Netmeeting for example requires this-- you connect to a server which handles directory info. A P2P VOIP network could decentralize this.
Prior to mass advertising the media was far more biased. There were liberal newspapers, there were conservative newspapers, etc. Everyone knew the bias existed and it really was not a problem. That's not to say that everything was better than now, there was yellow journalism and other forms of unprofessionalism, but it certainly was different.
Anyway, it is worth noting that the media is in a post-objective period these days. I believe the popular style is one called, "Fairness and Balance." ;)
Donate them to the Gmail invite spooler!