Yes. It's called commerce: Paying for services and goods that you use directly. (Note that this doesn't preclude pushing one's expenses onto the costs paid by someone else further down the line of trade.)
"let the (completely unfettered) market decide", and is 100% tincture of poppycock.
Oh. I didn't realize I was speaking to someone who is a believer in Intelligent Design.
I do not share your beliefs in such a preposterous notion; I do not put my faith in a "noble" bureaucrat, gazing into his crystal ball, pulling and pushing crude levers and buttons based on what he thinks he sees!
Your "let the market (of ideas) decide" is just magical/wishful thinking.
It's essentially how the set of phenomena that we call you came to be. It's magical/wishful thinking to accept any other philosophy, especially Intelligent Design. At best, you can only hope that the processes of variation and selection become more sophisticated over time.
If ideas are (to use your term) willfully selected by the backward, (on, no doubt, entirely rational, non-emotional grounds) then how is it that evolution (which is what you're positing drives this selection) is given such short shrift in backward areas, even in this day and age
If everything is always evolving, then why is it that humans pretty much look the same today as they did 1000 years ago, or even 100,000 years ago? It's called evolution for a reason; changes are almost always evolutionary, not revolutionary.
In terms of civilization, revolution is bloody and violent. We don't want that.
The U.S. was founded on the notion of decentralized and localized government with a mostly powerless point of union called the Federal Government; the constitution spends most of its time restricting government in favor of freedom for the people. How is that anything like what we have today? What we have today is monstrously centralized power and the inevitable central planning to which that leads, including, of course, a central hub of power that is easy to access by those with deep pockets but that is simultaneously difficult to access for the average individual.
The Federal government and to some extent State governments are monopolies that should be broken up.
Through localization and decentralization of the power structure, a robust process of governmental variation and selection can occur, thereby allowing society as a whole to evolve from these little experiments; if your community has better ideas that lead to more prosperity and peace, then your community's values will inevitably be adopted willfully by the more backward communities.
As I became an adult, I became crestfallen by the fact that society is largely structured around this petty fear of losing one's career. Having your job mechanized is a blessing; find something more useful to do with your newfound time.... or kill yourself to give the rest of us some more space.
Everything in the Universe is purely functional. Everything is information.
It is a creative description to convey the notion of an algorithmic construct (such as an iterative loop) by using a particular identifier ("for" or "while" or "foreach"). It is a creative description to convey the notion of a particular function by using a particular identifier ("getWidgetAndSendNotification"), or a variable by using a particular identifier ("the_man_has_a_green_hat").
These are creative choices that people are making in order to transmit information. Why shouldn't it be covered by copyright? In fact, that's exactly why you can claim copyright on code that you write: You are transmitting information in a paricular way (I chose "the_man_has_a_green_hat"; if you want copyright at all, then you should allow me to force you to choose another description, such as "there_is_a_green_hat_on_his_head"). Hence, copyright on an API seems quite plausible.
Of course, the fact that we feel like we need something such as copyright is a symptom of the despicableness of the human condition and of human nature.
So.... wouldn't the computer system take landing gear configuration and altitude into account in order to determine that "not flying anymore" must mean FSCKING STALLING?
Why in the world should taxpayer's have to foot the bill? WHY?
It's amazing how quickly people are willing to waste OTHER PEOPLE's money.
The right solution is to allow a company to continue operating until it has been found to be in violation by the time that due process ENDS—you know, "innocent until proven guilty". If the company is found in violation, then it would have to pay damages for the time that it continued to operate during due process. If the company was afraid of being found in violation, then it could CHOOSE to stop whatever is under scrutiny until the end of due process.
If you want to start a fight, go fsck around with your own resources.
Somebody made a creative choice to describe the algorithmic concept of an iterative loop by using the name "while"; that is a particular way of conveying or transmitting or expressing information.
Somebody made a creative choice to describe a particular algorithm with the name "getWidgetAndSendSignalToServer"; that is a particular way of conveying or transmitting or expressing information.
So, I think it's very difficult to say with certainty that something like copyright law doesn't apply to APIs and quite possibly even syntax.
Copyright is (or should be, rather) about protecting the transmission of information. This is why a fact itself is not protected, but a particular expression of that fact is protected.
What about syntax is fact? Syntax is a creative description for algorithmic/mathematical facts; it is a particular transmission of those facts. Therefore, of course it should be protected by copyright.
It is a creative description to convey the notion of an algorithmic construct (such as an iterative loop) by using a particular identifier ("for" or "while" or "foreach"). It is a creative description to convey the notion of a particular function by using a particular identifier ("getWidgetAndSendNotification"), or a variable by using a particular identifier ("the_man_has_a_green_hat").
These are creative choices that people are making in order to transmit information. Why shouldn't it be covered by copyright? In fact, that's exactly why you can claim copyright on code that you write: You are transmitting information in a paricular way (I chose "the_man_has_a_green_hat"; if you want copyright, then you should allow me to force you to choose another description, such as "there_is_a_green_hat_on_his_head"). Hence, copyright on an API seems quite plausible.
Of course, all of this reveals the shaky ground on which the notion of copyright itself is built. The fact that we feel like we need something such as copyright is a symptom of the despicableness of the human condition and of human nature.
Is it not a creative description to identify an algorithmic construct (such as an iterative loop) with a particular identifier ("for" or "while" or "foreach"), etc? Is it not a creative description to identify a function as "getWidgetAndSendNotification" or a variable as "man_has_a_green_hat"?
These are creative choices that people are making in order to convey information. Why shouldn't it be covered by copyright? (If you're going to insist on having something like copyright.)
IIRC, NoScript would allow every YouTube video to play automatically if I just allowed one YouTube video to play temporarily. So, I installed flashblock, which ALWAYS requires me to start each flash video manually.
I don't understand this obsession people have with gaining access to people's Facebook accounts. What is the origin of this craze? Why is it considered acceptable to require from people a Facebook password, but not, say, a Gmail account password?
Even more so, I don't understand this acquiescence to "authority" that many people seem to display; why in the world would you give somebody else your password like this?
You are trying to catch me in an inconsistent statement, but I have not made one. Instead, I have only pointed out inconsistent statements made by other people who are attempting to pigeonhole what I say into a preconceived dichotomy.
You don't understand that I'm not interested in Intelligent Design; I'm not interested in attempting to be the master of a complex system (for which there can never be a master) by giving you copious, detailed specifications. Indeed, I would be very wary of anyone peddling such things. What I can tell you is that I don't like being treated like your slave, a resource that you can exploit coercively for your own little ends.
I recognize that society is currently organized so as to require things like centralized bureaucracies funded by coercion, but that doesn't mean that I have to acquiesce.
I can still advocate from within the centralized bureaucracy for the further localization and decentralization of the power structure; I can still advocate for reducing and eventually removing taxation while still paying taxes; I can still advocate private property and explicit personal contracts within a system that has widespread public property and implicit "social contracts".
Just because you cannot envision a solution without the intervention of Big Government does not mean that a solution doesn't exist. I don't pretend to be an Intelligent Designer who can tell you exactly what society should look like. Fortunately, even something as complicated as the human brain can be evolved from hydrogen atoms through a largely mindless process of variation and selection. Unfortunately, a large centralized power structure limits variation and dulls selection (which is why societies frequently evolve such tyrannies; they are voracious local extrema in the solution space for governance).
I would of course oppose it; indeed, it would be easier for me to change the local mindset than the national mindset. Indeed, it would be easier for me to move from one locale to another than to move out of an entire country.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It's called commerce: Paying for services and goods that you use directly. (Note that this doesn't preclude pushing one's expenses onto the costs paid by someone else further down the line of trade.)
My goodness, you are ill-equipped for thought.
"let the (completely unfettered) market decide", and is 100% tincture of poppycock.
Oh. I didn't realize I was speaking to someone who is a believer in Intelligent Design.
I do not share your beliefs in such a preposterous notion; I do not put my faith in a "noble" bureaucrat, gazing into his crystal ball, pulling and pushing crude levers and buttons based on what he thinks he sees!
Your "let the market (of ideas) decide" is just magical/wishful thinking.
It's essentially how the set of phenomena that we call you came to be. It's magical/wishful thinking to accept any other philosophy, especially Intelligent Design. At best, you can only hope that the processes of variation and selection become more sophisticated over time.
If ideas are (to use your term) willfully selected by the backward, (on, no doubt, entirely rational, non-emotional grounds) then how is it that evolution (which is what you're positing drives this selection) is given such short shrift in backward areas, even in this day and age
If everything is always evolving, then why is it that humans pretty much look the same today as they did 1000 years ago, or even 100,000 years ago? It's called evolution for a reason; changes are almost always evolutionary, not revolutionary.
In terms of civilization, revolution is bloody and violent. We don't want that.
The U.S. was founded on the notion of decentralized and localized government with a mostly powerless point of union called the Federal Government; the constitution spends most of its time restricting government in favor of freedom for the people. How is that anything like what we have today? What we have today is monstrously centralized power and the inevitable central planning to which that leads, including, of course, a central hub of power that is easy to access by those with deep pockets but that is simultaneously difficult to access for the average individual.
The Federal government and to some extent State governments are monopolies that should be broken up.
Through localization and decentralization of the power structure, a robust process of governmental variation and selection can occur, thereby allowing society as a whole to evolve from these little experiments; if your community has better ideas that lead to more prosperity and peace, then your community's values will inevitably be adopted willfully by the more backward communities.
Because I am NOT your slave.
As I became an adult, I became crestfallen by the fact that society is largely structured around this petty fear of losing one's career. Having your job mechanized is a blessing; find something more useful to do with your newfound time.... or kill yourself to give the rest of us some more space.
It's a damn shame this article isn't wikified; it's in desperate need of editing.
I do not think the word 'reticent' means what you think it means.
The jury can also decide to pretend that the law doesn't exist even if it does, something called jury nullification.
What the hell does "purely functional" mean?
Everything in the Universe is purely functional. Everything is information.
It is a creative description to convey the notion of an algorithmic construct (such as an iterative loop) by using a particular identifier ("for" or "while" or "foreach"). It is a creative description to convey the notion of a particular function by using a particular identifier ("getWidgetAndSendNotification"), or a variable by using a particular identifier ("the_man_has_a_green_hat").
These are creative choices that people are making in order to transmit information. Why shouldn't it be covered by copyright? In fact, that's exactly why you can claim copyright on code that you write: You are transmitting information in a paricular way (I chose "the_man_has_a_green_hat"; if you want copyright at all, then you should allow me to force you to choose another description, such as "there_is_a_green_hat_on_his_head"). Hence, copyright on an API seems quite plausible.
Of course, the fact that we feel like we need something such as copyright is a symptom of the despicableness of the human condition and of human nature.
So.... wouldn't the computer system take landing gear configuration and altitude into account in order to determine that "not flying anymore" must mean FSCKING STALLING?
Why in the world should taxpayer's have to foot the bill? WHY?
It's amazing how quickly people are willing to waste OTHER PEOPLE's money.
The right solution is to allow a company to continue operating until it has been found to be in violation by the time that due process ENDS—you know, "innocent until proven guilty". If the company is found in violation, then it would have to pay damages for the time that it continued to operate during due process. If the company was afraid of being found in violation, then it could CHOOSE to stop whatever is under scrutiny until the end of due process.
If you want to start a fight, go fsck around with your own resources.
You didn't read what I wrote.
A description is an expression. See here for a more developed version of my comment.
Somebody made a creative choice to describe the algorithmic concept of an iterative loop by using the name "while"; that is a particular way of conveying or transmitting or expressing information.
Somebody made a creative choice to describe a particular algorithm with the name "getWidgetAndSendSignalToServer"; that is a particular way of conveying or transmitting or expressing information.
So, I think it's very difficult to say with certainty that something like copyright law doesn't apply to APIs and quite possibly even syntax.
Copyright is (or should be, rather) about protecting the transmission of information. This is why a fact itself is not protected, but a particular expression of that fact is protected.
What about syntax is fact? Syntax is a creative description for algorithmic/mathematical facts; it is a particular transmission of those facts. Therefore, of course it should be protected by copyright.
It is a creative description to convey the notion of an algorithmic construct (such as an iterative loop) by using a particular identifier ("for" or "while" or "foreach"). It is a creative description to convey the notion of a particular function by using a particular identifier ("getWidgetAndSendNotification"), or a variable by using a particular identifier ("the_man_has_a_green_hat").
These are creative choices that people are making in order to transmit information. Why shouldn't it be covered by copyright? In fact, that's exactly why you can claim copyright on code that you write: You are transmitting information in a paricular way (I chose "the_man_has_a_green_hat"; if you want copyright, then you should allow me to force you to choose another description, such as "there_is_a_green_hat_on_his_head"). Hence, copyright on an API seems quite plausible.
Of course, all of this reveals the shaky ground on which the notion of copyright itself is built. The fact that we feel like we need something such as copyright is a symptom of the despicableness of the human condition and of human nature.
Is it not a creative description to identify an algorithmic construct (such as an iterative loop) with a particular identifier ("for" or "while" or "foreach"), etc? Is it not a creative description to identify a function as "getWidgetAndSendNotification" or a variable as "man_has_a_green_hat"?
These are creative choices that people are making in order to convey information. Why shouldn't it be covered by copyright? (If you're going to insist on having something like copyright.)
IIRC, NoScript would allow every YouTube video to play automatically if I just allowed one YouTube video to play temporarily. So, I installed flashblock, which ALWAYS requires me to start each flash video manually.
The hard work was done long before anything like `Android' could be bought by Google.
I don't understand this obsession people have with gaining access to people's Facebook accounts. What is the origin of this craze? Why is it considered acceptable to require from people a Facebook password, but not, say, a Gmail account password?
Even more so, I don't understand this acquiescence to "authority" that many people seem to display; why in the world would you give somebody else your password like this?
You are trying to catch me in an inconsistent statement, but I have not made one. Instead, I have only pointed out inconsistent statements made by other people who are attempting to pigeonhole what I say into a preconceived dichotomy.
I suppose that's better than being a violent, indoctrinated, nationalistic douchebag.
You don't understand that I'm not interested in Intelligent Design; I'm not interested in attempting to be the master of a complex system (for which there can never be a master) by giving you copious, detailed specifications. Indeed, I would be very wary of anyone peddling such things. What I can tell you is that I don't like being treated like your slave, a resource that you can exploit coercively for your own little ends.
I recognize that society is currently organized so as to require things like centralized bureaucracies funded by coercion, but that doesn't mean that I have to acquiesce.
I can still advocate from within the centralized bureaucracy for the further localization and decentralization of the power structure; I can still advocate for reducing and eventually removing taxation while still paying taxes; I can still advocate private property and explicit personal contracts within a system that has widespread public property and implicit "social contracts".
Just because you cannot envision a solution without the intervention of Big Government does not mean that a solution doesn't exist. I don't pretend to be an Intelligent Designer who can tell you exactly what society should look like. Fortunately, even something as complicated as the human brain can be evolved from hydrogen atoms through a largely mindless process of variation and selection. Unfortunately, a large centralized power structure limits variation and dulls selection (which is why societies frequently evolve such tyrannies; they are voracious local extrema in the solution space for governance).
To argue further would be to repeat myself in various ways; sorry that you don't understand what I'm saying.
I would of course oppose it; indeed, it would be easier for me to change the local mindset than the national mindset. Indeed, it would be easier for me to move from one locale to another than to move out of an entire country.