Which portion of the network does the government own, exactly? Do you think those tax breaks conferred some sort of property rights? That's an... interesting interpretation.
It is a thoroughly functional system, unless you somehow take disputes as a sign of dysfunction. Good luck ever eliminating those. The government certainly never planned that things would execute ideally, hence the legal system.
I know the/. party line is that everything would be perfect if only everyone were forced to share, and that is an ideal plan so long as you have ideal people - which is a tiny snag.
No option whereby the government owns the lines of communication is acceptable to me. The benefits are vague, it utterly eliminates competition in a market that actually has some now, and it makes the idea of domestic wiretapping a part of the daily fabric of everything we do. Not to mention, we don't have the money to pay for it, outside of a totally unconstitutional uncompensated confiscation of assets.
Who said the only incentive is material gain? Are you sad that people like to have rewards for their efforts? Why do you think it's more fair for you to set the terms of incentive instead of the creator?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That's what it says. Nothing about improving access. You might try to quibble that you can somehow promote progress other than by incentivizing creation, but you're pulling that from wherever you got your idea of what the Constitution says.
You seem to think that the goal of the system is to give you open access to anything you want on your terms. That has never been the point of copyright. The point has always been to set up a system whereby creation can be incentivized - which works wonderfully well. We have more creative output and more access to it now than ever before, and every trend is upward.
That shouldn't mean everyone gets what they want when they want it merely because they want it.
I disagree with the notion that using my money to provide free broadband is a good use. Period. It's certainly possible it will pay off in some vague societal form, but I don't want my government in the business of speculative investment. I certainly don't want them owning the lines of communication.
"This similar system is also in the same danger" is not an argument to continue doing it, is it? I mean logically, no, not at all. What I'm wondering is, did you intend it that way?
Who said my society is utopian? I'm not an idealist, so I never had such a notion in mind in the first place.
My advice to you, if you are seeking the ideal society to suit your desires is... I have nothing useful to offer. Chasing utopia is the core mistake of what appears to be your philosophy. There never has been and never will be such a thing in the real universe, and I am not interested in wasting my time helping you.
Apple doesn't mandate that anyone develop for their platform, and they certainly don't mandate that anyone create features that use any particular APIs. No one was forced into anything here.
I get your point, but your language is extremely loose.
The summary describes a screen that does not exist in the iPhone alarm clock app, and the "+" button (not icon) is pretty clear in context, being right next to the word "Alarms" like it is.
There are at least as many excellent reasons to like all of the examples, as well. Particularly for non-geek people who don't get caught up in silly software ethics arguments or meaningless technological purity battles.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, you don't know how to behave in society but we keep letting you in.
Which portion of the network does the government own, exactly? Do you think those tax breaks conferred some sort of property rights? That's an... interesting interpretation.
It is a thoroughly functional system, unless you somehow take disputes as a sign of dysfunction. Good luck ever eliminating those. The government certainly never planned that things would execute ideally, hence the legal system.
I know the /. party line is that everything would be perfect if only everyone were forced to share, and that is an ideal plan so long as you have ideal people - which is a tiny snag.
Yup, everything is obvious once someone has invented it. Hence, patents.
Europe is clearly perfect.
I'll be charitable and say you have an optimism about human capability that is disarming in its simplicity.
No option whereby the government owns the lines of communication is acceptable to me. The benefits are vague, it utterly eliminates competition in a market that actually has some now, and it makes the idea of domestic wiretapping a part of the daily fabric of everything we do. Not to mention, we don't have the money to pay for it, outside of a totally unconstitutional uncompensated confiscation of assets.
Yeah, and the technology roapmap is generally built around the needs of people who think computing reached its nadir in the 70s.
Basically, yeah. We're still the same, by and large. We just have cooler toys.
Who said the only incentive is material gain? Are you sad that people like to have rewards for their efforts? Why do you think it's more fair for you to set the terms of incentive instead of the creator?
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That's what it says. Nothing about improving access. You might try to quibble that you can somehow promote progress other than by incentivizing creation, but you're pulling that from wherever you got your idea of what the Constitution says.
I'd like to note, I think Warner Bros should have to pay here. That was an original work of art they copied.
I'm saying we, right now, have more creative works and greater access to them than at any point in history. The system, flawed as it may be, works.
Ideals are fine and wonderful and have never, ever worked.
So yeah, I come down on the winning side.
You seem to think that the goal of the system is to give you open access to anything you want on your terms. That has never been the point of copyright. The point has always been to set up a system whereby creation can be incentivized - which works wonderfully well. We have more creative output and more access to it now than ever before, and every trend is upward.
That shouldn't mean everyone gets what they want when they want it merely because they want it.
I disagree with the notion that using my money to provide free broadband is a good use. Period. It's certainly possible it will pay off in some vague societal form, but I don't want my government in the business of speculative investment. I certainly don't want them owning the lines of communication.
"This similar system is also in the same danger" is not an argument to continue doing it, is it? I mean logically, no, not at all. What I'm wondering is, did you intend it that way?
There are people who believe that my money should subsidize their lifestyle, because I make more than they do.
I can certainly understand where it comes from. Who wouldn't want someone else to pay for everything for them? I don't sympathize, however.
Who said my society is utopian? I'm not an idealist, so I never had such a notion in mind in the first place.
My advice to you, if you are seeking the ideal society to suit your desires is... I have nothing useful to offer. Chasing utopia is the core mistake of what appears to be your philosophy. There never has been and never will be such a thing in the real universe, and I am not interested in wasting my time helping you.
Apple doesn't mandate that anyone develop for their platform, and they certainly don't mandate that anyone create features that use any particular APIs. No one was forced into anything here.
I get your point, but your language is extremely loose.
What kind of heaven would it be if I still have to use condoms?
"it's like a computer, only useless."
Further regulation can only help so much. It's not like making illegal stuff more illegal does anything to stem the tide.
It's an incompatible version of something that doesn't actually exist anywhere? Crippled as opposed to, again, something that doesn't exist?
Did you write the article? You make about as much sense, particularly in that you bash Apple for Intel's tech.
The summary describes a screen that does not exist in the iPhone alarm clock app, and the "+" button (not icon) is pretty clear in context, being right next to the word "Alarms" like it is.
There are at least as many excellent reasons to like all of the examples, as well. Particularly for non-geek people who don't get caught up in silly software ethics arguments or meaningless technological purity battles.