That's a specious argument. You don't pay for the data, you pay a specific rate for data on a particular type of device. That's like renting a Kia Rio for an unlimited miles weekend and then towing a 30' boat with it 24x7. It's like using the unlimited refills at McDonald's to fill up a cooler full of Coke.
Teachers have to be able to cope with bad or uninvolved parents. If parents were good at educating their own children, we wouldn't have invented schools and teachers. What do you do when an orphan shows up in your classroom? Throw up your hands and proclaim the child unable to be educated?
And why should standardized tests hold back the gifted? Can't be all that gifted if they can't pass a standardized test.
I suspect we are averaging out. There may be fewer illiterate and innumerate people out there, and the very top end is also being challenged in ways the top end never was, and so by those metrics we are all "smarter". But the big fat "middle-class" on the scale of education is not being as rigorously educated as they once were. Lets just say someone who has received a basic high school education. I think that education is not as good as it was in generations past. Certainly not in my experience. And I think that is why we are seeing failures- there isn't enough intellectual rigor in education. The lessons don't stick. So when little Fauntleroy enters Algebra II, he doesn't remember dick about Algebra I. Because it isn't being taught as a system or with any context. Simply as a series of lessons to memorize and vomit back onto a test.
You've done a fantastic job of creating and knocking down strawmen and purposefully misunderstanding every word I wrote, but you end with this:
You don't seem to understand that you can't own ideas or music or history or culture.
Which contradicts your original assertion, that songs and ideas are owned by everyone once they are published or performed. So it is you that is spouting nonsense when you then say that ideas cannot be owned. If something can belong to a group of people, it can just as easily belong to smaller group or an individual.
I'm going to stop arguing, because you are clearly one of those people who simply do not want to have to pay for something that you could get for free, so you have developed this elaborate pseudo-legal and pseudo-historical argument for why you believe artists should not be allowed to profit from their work. Simple as that.
Er, copying something doesn't deprive the owner of the original.
And yes, that's the legal definition of theft.
No matter how much you want it to it just doesn't mean copying.
Reducing the value is a type of deprivation.
Thought experiment: extrapolate it out. An author has their manuscript or song complete, ready for distribution. Some person gains access to the computer storing it, copies it and puts it on some kind of Napster service where anyone and everyone can get a copy of it for free. The author cannot sell copies of their work for any price, because anyone who wants it has already gotten their copy. That is theft, even by your narrow definition. All the value of the thing has been removed; the thief deprived the owner of it. That being true, then what we are arguing about now is just degree.
I find it hard to imagine a world where a 3-D printer will be able to make a 2x4 for less $ than the $1.67 one costs at the home center. I mean, it costs about $0.10 just to print color onto a piece of paper at home. More if you use inkjet.
I think the argument is that people want the glory or feelings of accomplishment of having "done it themselves" when all they did was put together a kit. These are people who DO have an interest in laying down their own tile, but are unwilling to take the time to figure out how to do it themselves.
The "theft has to be a *thing*, man" argument is tired and mostly wrong. The fundamental point of either word is a taking of property with the intent to deprive, which is absolutely relevant to copyright infringement the same way theft of services is still theft. Intellectual property is property.
I think the fundamental ignorance is yours. First, intellectual property is not the same thing as a trade secret. Second, being a consumer of a work of art is not the same as being the creator/owner of one. Your assertion is ridiculous on the face of it, any more than knowing what the Chrysler Building looks like gives me a property right to it. Knowledge/familiarity and ownership are two different concepts. The Chrysler Building "belongs to" New York the same way your song "belongs to" the public: it's a part of the culture. That's totally different from ownership in a property sense.
The only thing worse than the home built network is the one where they hired some "expert" to build or repair it. The expert being someone's brother-in-law, of course. That's where you find managed switches with no configuration; $10,000 servers with expensive RAID cards left unconfigured and the drives are JBOD; an old HP Vectra with 12 MagicJacks plugged into $2 USB hubs, which are then plugged into a $20,000 Nortel phone system; unused KVMs; etc.
Patents aren't supposed to be a virtual land grab.
No, that's exactly what they are. You get property rights to an idea for a limited time, in exchange for disclosing the idea. Others can embrace and extend when the patent expires.
All human progress is based on "embrace and exploit". This includes just the fact that you even exist as well as your cushy lifestyle. It also includes this forum.
All of that is dependent on centuries of what modern corporate shills would call "theft".
The problem is that things happen at faster speeds now. Farmer Joe couldn't work more than an acre or two with his fancy new plow invention no matter what, so what does he care if someone copies it? The law didn't recognize intellectual property as something that it is possible to steal ONLY because there was no need for it at the time. That doesn't mean that it isn't relevant or necessary now.
You can't do tests with placebos and controls because every person is different, and every problem is different. What would seem like removing variability is actually increasing it. How do you know your control really isn't a crazy person who doesn't know it yet? You can't figure out why someone is depressed without treating them, and that invalidates the control.
My guess is that in an environment where brevity and casualness is the norm, using fully structured sentences and grammar is something that identifies the twitterer as A.B.Normal. (IE, failing to adhere to the social norms of the environment.) That trait itself doesn't mean anything, but combined with the other ones it can (presumably?) identify someone as being a psycho.
That IS how it works. If DishNetwork wants FX and FoxTV, they have to take Fox News, Speed TV and whatever other tripe they put out, for $6 a month per subscriber. They won't just sell FX alone. (Well, they might, but then it's $8 a month.) Viacom and ABC and the rest are the same way. That's why you hear about this set of channels or that one not being available for a time on Dish or Comcast- they are negotiating the price for all those channels as a bundle.
When a musician create a new song and performs it for a public audience, it belongs to the public.
Its interesting how some people believe in intellectual property just fine when they are taking it from someone. Just not when someone asserts it for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The bandwidth was already paid for.
No, you pay for the ability to use up to that amount of data with a smartphone.
What exactly did Verizon do to earn $20?
They built a service that people want to use.
That's a specious argument. You don't pay for the data, you pay a specific rate for data on a particular type of device. That's like renting a Kia Rio for an unlimited miles weekend and then towing a 30' boat with it 24x7. It's like using the unlimited refills at McDonald's to fill up a cooler full of Coke.
What in the hell are you doing with a phone that uses up 20g a month? I use like 250m, and use all the data I can think of, constantly.
Not to mention, sowing the seeds of the robot holocaust.
Teachers have to be able to cope with bad or uninvolved parents. If parents were good at educating their own children, we wouldn't have invented schools and teachers. What do you do when an orphan shows up in your classroom? Throw up your hands and proclaim the child unable to be educated?
And why should standardized tests hold back the gifted? Can't be all that gifted if they can't pass a standardized test.
I suspect we are averaging out. There may be fewer illiterate and innumerate people out there, and the very top end is also being challenged in ways the top end never was, and so by those metrics we are all "smarter". But the big fat "middle-class" on the scale of education is not being as rigorously educated as they once were. Lets just say someone who has received a basic high school education. I think that education is not as good as it was in generations past. Certainly not in my experience. And I think that is why we are seeing failures- there isn't enough intellectual rigor in education. The lessons don't stick. So when little Fauntleroy enters Algebra II, he doesn't remember dick about Algebra I. Because it isn't being taught as a system or with any context. Simply as a series of lessons to memorize and vomit back onto a test.
Where are all these armed home invasions happening?
Insurance is not gambling, it is risk sharing.
The US public school system works exceedingly well
Compared to what? Mexico?
I wasn't disagreeing with the guy.
Whether a need exists is not the point. There is a difference between building something and assembling something.
You don't seem to understand that you can't own ideas or music or history or culture.
Which contradicts your original assertion, that songs and ideas are owned by everyone once they are published or performed. So it is you that is spouting nonsense when you then say that ideas cannot be owned. If something can belong to a group of people, it can just as easily belong to smaller group or an individual.
I'm going to stop arguing, because you are clearly one of those people who simply do not want to have to pay for something that you could get for free, so you have developed this elaborate pseudo-legal and pseudo-historical argument for why you believe artists should not be allowed to profit from their work. Simple as that.
Er, copying something doesn't deprive the owner of the original. And yes, that's the legal definition of theft. No matter how much you want it to it just doesn't mean copying.
Reducing the value is a type of deprivation.
Thought experiment: extrapolate it out. An author has their manuscript or song complete, ready for distribution. Some person gains access to the computer storing it, copies it and puts it on some kind of Napster service where anyone and everyone can get a copy of it for free. The author cannot sell copies of their work for any price, because anyone who wants it has already gotten their copy. That is theft, even by your narrow definition. All the value of the thing has been removed; the thief deprived the owner of it. That being true, then what we are arguing about now is just degree.
I find it hard to imagine a world where a 3-D printer will be able to make a 2x4 for less $ than the $1.67 one costs at the home center. I mean, it costs about $0.10 just to print color onto a piece of paper at home. More if you use inkjet.
I think the argument is that people want the glory or feelings of accomplishment of having "done it themselves" when all they did was put together a kit. These are people who DO have an interest in laying down their own tile, but are unwilling to take the time to figure out how to do it themselves.
No, you can put together a puzzle. That's different from actually building something.
The "theft has to be a *thing*, man" argument is tired and mostly wrong. The fundamental point of either word is a taking of property with the intent to deprive, which is absolutely relevant to copyright infringement the same way theft of services is still theft. Intellectual property is property.
I think the fundamental ignorance is yours. First, intellectual property is not the same thing as a trade secret. Second, being a consumer of a work of art is not the same as being the creator/owner of one. Your assertion is ridiculous on the face of it, any more than knowing what the Chrysler Building looks like gives me a property right to it. Knowledge/familiarity and ownership are two different concepts. The Chrysler Building "belongs to" New York the same way your song "belongs to" the public: it's a part of the culture. That's totally different from ownership in a property sense.
The only thing worse than the home built network is the one where they hired some "expert" to build or repair it. The expert being someone's brother-in-law, of course. That's where you find managed switches with no configuration; $10,000 servers with expensive RAID cards left unconfigured and the drives are JBOD; an old HP Vectra with 12 MagicJacks plugged into $2 USB hubs, which are then plugged into a $20,000 Nortel phone system; unused KVMs; etc.
Patents aren't supposed to be a virtual land grab.
No, that's exactly what they are. You get property rights to an idea for a limited time, in exchange for disclosing the idea. Others can embrace and extend when the patent expires.
All human progress is based on "embrace and exploit". This includes just the fact that you even exist as well as your cushy lifestyle. It also includes this forum.
All of that is dependent on centuries of what modern corporate shills would call "theft".
The problem is that things happen at faster speeds now. Farmer Joe couldn't work more than an acre or two with his fancy new plow invention no matter what, so what does he care if someone copies it? The law didn't recognize intellectual property as something that it is possible to steal ONLY because there was no need for it at the time. That doesn't mean that it isn't relevant or necessary now.
You can't do tests with placebos and controls because every person is different, and every problem is different. What would seem like removing variability is actually increasing it. How do you know your control really isn't a crazy person who doesn't know it yet? You can't figure out why someone is depressed without treating them, and that invalidates the control.
My guess is that in an environment where brevity and casualness is the norm, using fully structured sentences and grammar is something that identifies the twitterer as A.B.Normal. (IE, failing to adhere to the social norms of the environment.) That trait itself doesn't mean anything, but combined with the other ones it can (presumably?) identify someone as being a psycho.
That IS how it works. If DishNetwork wants FX and FoxTV, they have to take Fox News, Speed TV and whatever other tripe they put out, for $6 a month per subscriber. They won't just sell FX alone. (Well, they might, but then it's $8 a month.) Viacom and ABC and the rest are the same way. That's why you hear about this set of channels or that one not being available for a time on Dish or Comcast- they are negotiating the price for all those channels as a bundle.
When a musician create a new song and performs it for a public audience, it belongs to the public.
Its interesting how some people believe in intellectual property just fine when they are taking it from someone. Just not when someone asserts it for themselves.
I think what RMS is saying is that all music should be distributed with a license disclosing what can and can not be done with it.
It is. It's called "copyright".