What privacy should a person have in public? Its not like they are tapping your phone, spying on you in your house, or invading your privacy.
In my honest opinion, in public you should have NO privacy. Cameras should be everywhere once you walk outside, your every movement watched, i mean to stop terrorism, crime, etc this is what is needed.
Do police invade on your privacy when they watch you to protect laws? They have been doing this for years and years from police cars, technology is better, why not let police use cameras to catch criminals and terrorists?
In your house, sure you have privacy, outside screw privacy, I'll choose safety and security over privacy when it comes to being outside in a public place.
I dont care about what privacy advocates say, hey i'm a privacy advocate too, but i know when things are taken out of context, taken too far.
Kinda like saying people should have the freedom to kill, thats taking freedom a bit too far in my opinion, but i dont make the laws.
Freedom is important, Privacy is important, and yes you should have complete freedom and privacy in your house, but outside, you should have complete security.
Theres no one to protect you if theres no law enforcement, and police cant be everywhere. Do you want your privacy and your freedom to die privately in the next 911, or do you want to be able to walk outside anywhere and know you are completely safe, know if someone tries to rob you they will bee caught, women will be able to walk outside alone at night again without worrying about being raped and children will be able to play alone in the streets without parents having to watch them.
Think of it this way, if you were a child, would you want privacy or security? A child is protected by their parents. Who protects the parents? Protecting yourself wont work much longer, technology is so great that one person can kill thousands, maybe even millions soon.
Thats what the current system refuses to understnand.
Theres no theory on how kids think, just a theory on how the average kid thinks.
accept the fact everyone thinks diffrently, while most people may do best in the enviornment which you project, or in think in the way which you describe,
When i was growing up i wasnt average, i learned in my own way, teachers thought i would be a failure and drop out and i surprised even myself when i graduated with scholarships.
All it took was switching schools to an alternative school which allows a person to learn in whatever way works.
Theres no standard when it comes to thinking, allow a person to think and learn in the way which works best for them, and stop trying to decide which works best for everyone.
Thats what i have to say, the brain develops in diffrent ways for everyone, for me, i'm good at things i never thought i'd be good at, my brain developed in a weird way, i went from being a total failure in school, i went from being a kid who only played video games and did stuff that was fun, to being a computer genius adult who knows a few programming languages and understands the most complex areas of computers, science and technology.
Really i say ask the kid how he wants to learn, and teach him in the way he wants to learn, kids learn best when they are learning by themselves.
funny how a kid can memorize hundreds of pokemon at age 6 yet people think the same kid cant memorize some math or learn programming, its not their brain thats problem, its the style in which they learn stuff, pokemon, video games, toys, that stuff is interesting
if learning was a game, kids would learn faster.
If i were a kid and i could learn any way i wanted, i would choose to learn from video games and computers, i did most of my learning that way and if i would have started as a kid i would know so much more.
so? Maybe the kid doesnt want to add 50 plus 50, honestly, that skill is no longer a needed skill to get a job.
Why focus on what ifs, focus on whats needed for a person to be sucessful, knowing how to calculate 50 plus 50 doesnt matter, what matters is knowing how to get the answer of 50 plus 50, if you cant do it on paper, use a calculator, if you cant use that use pen and paper, if you cant use that, then use an abacus or whatever they call it.
But really, this is not something that you need to do in your head, the workplace does not care how you get solutions to problems, they just want solutions.
I agree you should know the basics, addition, multiplication, subtraction and division, the BASICS.
But i dont think you need to know advanced maths in your head. Use a calculator and master the calculator, it was created for that specific purpose, most adults dont remember all the advanced maths.
I remember the basics, thats all thats needed.
You cant really properly use a computer without knowing basic maths, i mean how can you do stuff if you dont know how to add and subtract.
Oh course people should learn that, mainly so they can handle their finances if they dont have a calculator. However i wouldnt make it a rule, i'd make it an addition. While its good to learn the calculator, its better to learn how the calculator works, i'd teach the kid to use the calculator, then show the kid what the calculator is doing.
make the kids ask questions, because then you know they truely want to learn.
so how do your kids learn? from the enviornment? you expect them to learn better in a classroom than on the computer?
Well in a classroom you have paper and you do the same problem 10093029 times, some people learn from repetition, some people however dont need to do the same problem 3402940390 times to learn the process of solving the problem and the concepts.
Computers are for certain types of learners, learners who dont need repetition.
By giving a kid the REAL information, alot of it which is wrong but alot of it which is right, you teach your kid how to think. Theres more than one side to every story. Textbooks in highschool never teach that, if you look at a history class using text books, on say cowboys and indians, the indians are the bad guys not the cowboys, but go to an indian reservation and get the other side of the story.
Compare the two sides, the truth is usually a mixture of both.
Ok, word processors are ok, but if a kid learns to properly use the internet, nothing compares to that.
Powerpoint is perfect for presentations if a kid knows how to use it.Adults in corperations use power point all the time and they dont get distracted by pretty colors, what are you thinking?
Power point is a tool, a tool that if properly used, can produce good work. Sure a kid can be like "oh cool a computery gadget"
but a kid sitting in front of a text book can do the same thing, space out and daydream all day.
At least by allowing them to be creative you have a better chance at keeping their attention on something thats most likely boring as hell.
Computer a toy? TV is a toy too and schools used TV, pencils can be a toy, when i was in school i would spend my time drawing stuff because yes even the pencil can be a toy.
Paper can be a toy, ive made paper airplanes in class.
Anything can be a toy, the goal is to teach a kid to use it as a tool.
Well thats because kids have to be TAUGHT to use computers to learn, its not going to be instant.
Tell them to use powerpoint, but list the steps.
Research your information using the internet.(gather information)
Create new information from gathered information.(dont forget to spell check)
Create useful graphics to explain the information
The last part, put the information in order.
Before you tell a kid to use powerpoint, find out if the school even teaches a class on powerpoint. If they teach a class on powerpoint then the kids know how to use powerpoint, if they dont, then its your job to give them a crash course on how to use power point.
Its sorta like giving a kid a text book and telling them to use it to learn, some kids will, some wont. Your job isnt to collect work and then grade them, your job is to teach them the proper method to create good work, the way to learn while creating good work to prove they learned.
That should be the goal, not their grade point average, not how much work is completed, but quality work.
I'm not a teacher, but ive had my ups and downs in school, and from experience, my success in school came when i learned how to learn using the tool i was most comfortable with which happened to be computers, not everyone can handle computers, not everyone can handle the text book, but everyone learns somehow and everyone can learn to handle text books or computers.
I did badly in school, and nearly dropped out, I discovered computers, and did a complete turn around, I switched schools to one of those new alternative schools which had alot of computers, 2-3 computers in every classroom and guess what, I nearly made honor roll, graduated with a scholarship etc etc.
I dont think computers matter in first grade as much, first graders however can use computers to help learn certain subjects.
Reading.
Math.
History.
These 3 subjects are easier learned on computers. How do i know? Because i never learned a damn thing about any of these 3 subjects from a text book.
Example of how to get a kid to learn from a computer, send the kid to the computer lab or to the computer inthe classroom, make sure its internet connected. Ask the kid to research say dr martin luther king, the kid will go from website to website and learn the very important art of how to gather information and learn on their own.
The kid will find 4-5 diffrent pages on Martin Luther King, the kid will then write up a paper based on these pages they read complete with bibliography.
After the paper is typed up (this is much much faster than doing draft1, draft2, draft3 in handwriting and teaches your kid how to type)
Your kid learned to type, learned to read, and learned history all at the same time while learning to use the internet and learning to learn without being guided by a text book.
This is how i learned history.
Math can be learned using computers as well, for younger kids an interactive math game would be great. For older kids who know the basics, teaching them computer programming would be great. Computer programming teaches kids to solve problems and thats what math really is, it also teaches attention to detail, something most people dont learn until they get a job and get forced to learn it.
Reading, the best thing a computer can teach, is reading. Let the kid browse the net for fun, knowing all during this time the kid is learning to read.
Honestly, I learned to read from playinng role playing games on my Nintendo, reading magazines for video games, and other fun stuff.
People learn to read when they discover somethinng that interests them and dont know how to understand it.People do not learn to read by using coloring books, and reading generic childrens books, people also dont like being forced to read.
With computers, everyone can read exactly what they want, a teacher can be around to help guide them, when they find words they dont know (I still do this evven now) Teach them to go to a dictionary search page and enter the world and now they know what it means. Using classic dictionaries are slower and its silly for kids to be forced to learn about words they already know (Open book and go look up these words and write the definition) The kid learns nothing doing repetitive tasks.
How do I konw? Because i didnt learn much in school mainly due to boring repetitive tasks, If i do something once or twice, i know it, i dont need to practice it for weeks, the internet would allow someone to prove they know what they know, you cant use computers if you dont know reading and math, and the act of using the net unless its for pornography, is research.
Why should people be paid for doing what they'll do for free?
People share ideas when theres no incentive to sell them.
Linux is a perfect example, theres many others.
Competition does not equal innovation, in some situations it can help it and in some situations it can harm it.
Patents do not help people in third worlds at all, they cant get venture capital at all, they lack the information needed.
To the guy who mentioned they are ignortance, ignorance is lack of knowledge, when knowledge has a price often people cannot afford to not be ignorant.
Some kid who cant afford a book wont learn to read, wont learn math, i mean afterall college isnt free, and neither are books, when information has a price, people with money can buy thier way out of ignorance, people without it, are out of luck.
Its not a fair playing ground.
Last but not least, big companies arent needed to form ideas, and if you have an idea and want to make a product, you keep the idea, you make a prototype, then there could be a law which allows you to sign an NDA with the company, the two of you can then turn your idea into a product and it would be illegal for them to reveal your idea however once the product is made, your idea is released to the world and your product must be the best to continue selling.
Imagine a world, where you can take the source code from any program ever written and add it to your own.
This would improve innovation because less time would be spent reinventing the wheel. You'd have better higher quality programs, you'd have more programs.
It will be proven via the success of linux, that patents on software is bad for progress.
Ever wonder why Linux in a few years caught up to Windows in every area except maybe 1 or 2? Its because in linux everyone shared software. Because its open source, people didnt have to reinvent the wheel even though they still do, people dont have to.
Now imagine a world where billions of people are programmers all writing solutions to problems, programming would turn into "Insert solution here for search algorithm" "Insert solution here for distributed networking" "Insert and combine solution here to create new solution"
It would make programming more like science or chemistry, it would be mixing and matching, combining and building, and less design issues and problem solving. Programs would be less buggy, would run faster, the quality level would increase and because people dont have to reinvest the wheel the innovation would increase. There would be more programmers because programming would be easier, and last but not lease a program would run in all Os's because all Os's are open source and compatible with each other.
IP leads to mind control. In about 20 maybe 30 years when we can communicate via thoughts through a brain to computer interface. (I know less intelligent people will consider this sci fi but its going to happen)
WHEN it happens, what will happen to IP?
How will it be enforced?
NDA will that include it being illegal to share your thoughts?
People refuse to look ahead into the futre, the future if it continues will cause us to lose our freedom of thought in the same way we have lost our freedom of information. If thought to thought communication is the next internet, and if information on the internet isnt even 100 percent free with people like the RIAA and MPAA trying to remove freedom. Imagine the MPAA and RIAA in the future, if you listen to your favorite song and try to memorize it and repeat it in your head, nope, that will be illegal and you'll be fined by the RIAA.
You see in a world where every peice of information is under IP, and in a world of high technology, and superior communication to what we have now, without absolute freedom, it will be living hell.
The internet is about giving freedom not taking it away, the internet is about expressing our thoughts, telling a person what they cant do with their thoughts should not be legal, saying "you cant make software which breaks DMCA" should be illegal because you are preventing a person from expressing their thoughts.
What next? Making it illegal for men to cry because its deemed illegal, oh yeah crying is patented and you'll be fined by the RIAA for having such an emotion. You see how stupid IP laws are? The idea of owning an emotion sounds stupid, the idea of owning a thought sounds stupid, how is owning an idea any diffrent?
When we have the ability to communicate via thoughts, will there be a law saying "That thought is patented"
I'm sure we will see patented thoughts, and some thoughts will be illegal, you'll have police arresting you for thinking bad thoughts, you'll get sued for thinking of thoughts which have owners, and you'll pay a fine for thinking of thoughts which are deemed as dangerous.
wrong i never said get rid of capitalism.
I said make it fair.
You should still get paid for your WORK.
You should never get paid for your THOUGHTS and IDEAS.
Work deserves money, not ideas.
You have an idea, you keep it to yourself, you make a product and you sell the product based on your idea.
You want to write software? You write a few samples then you tell people to pay you and if they pay you to write more software you keep writing it, transgaming style.
Music can work as a service as well via channels like TV.
What i'm saying is, find new ways to profit, i'm not saying no one can profit, i'm not saying theres no incentive. I'm saying find new ways to profit.
Profit on services, make money on actual physical products, make money on hard work, no one should make money from ideas.
If you dont think of an idea, someone else will, ideas spread naturally, people share them for free if you dont pay them, its not like some guys going to have an idea and sit on it because he cant get paid, if he cant get paid for the idea he will tell his friends who tell their friends until someone decides to use it.
Where do you think Microsoft got their ideas from? Open source software, or stole it from closed source companies who got their ideas from open source software.
TCPIP, the windows kernel, everything is based off of something thats already been done.
Since rich people control the information, the rich get richer by exploiting the information which they have.
Hows it free? I'll believe in capitalism with IP when i start seeing poor people from third world countries starting companies and beating our companies.
Afterall we are outnumbered, its kinda funny we are the ones benifiting from capitalism and no one else.
Maybe thats because we have the unfair advantage of already being rich, already controlling most of the information in the world, having all the patents and having enough monopolies to maintain the unfair advantage.
Thats why the global economy idea will never work, good on paper, bad in practice.
Poor people do not have information to educate themselves to our level giving us the unfair advantage, a kid who cant afford books to the quality of ours, who cant even afford medicine to stay healthy enough is too busy trying to survive to think about innovative stuff.
It will always be like that as long as we control information.
Millions of people in third world countries dying because of patents on drugs.
Kids and adults lacking intelligence due to patents on information which could enlighten the world.
Innovation controlled by big corperations using patents, and all for a profit, milk the old technology for 40 years or more until profits force you to change.
Government controlled by companies like Enron who take advantage of the flaws in the system.
Criminals and organized crime taking advantage of capitalism, people being killed for a buck, and wars being faught over money issues.
Whens it going to end? Capitalism is fine, but too much of anything is bad. When will people figure out, too much capitalism, too much competition, and not enough sharing is bad? Yes moderate competition fuels innovation, too much competition however makes the enviornment so competitive that no one can innovate.
Imagine the innovation and the new technologies we'd have, if third world countries had access to all the information in the world, and any kid rich or poor could be the next einstien or bill gates, any living person, any of the 6 billion people could come out with an idea, which changes the world and shares the idea for free.
Money needs to be made people say, just because you share an idea doesnt mean you'll turn that idea into a product. The product is what people buy, the service is what people pay for, not the idea or the information.
My opinion is, more focus should be on sharing information, less focus on competiton, more focus on ways to earn money from hard work and not from information, ideas, or earning money from having money.
We also need to fix the problems in our government, the current administration is just a joke, they got into office in a suspicious manner, and now we here stuff about Eron, corruption within the government should be removed, it will be difficult but its possible.
First we are a republic.
Second we are capitalist, absolute capitalist in fact. So capitalist that we hurt ourselves to make money, kill each other to make money, and kill innovation for a profit (microsoft for example)
people should be paid for services not for information or ideas.
information should not have a price. The service of producing the information, well, that should have a price.
once something is made its free, before its made, you pay someone to make it.
wrong, most of the technology created for the net except for the hardware stuff was all open source.
We went closed source and technology and innovation slowed down as microsoft got a firmer grip on the industry. There hasnt been any innovation in years.
Slashdot Mirror
What privacy should a person have in public? Its not like they are tapping your phone, spying on you in your house, or invading your privacy.
In my honest opinion, in public you should have NO privacy. Cameras should be everywhere once you walk outside, your every movement watched, i mean to stop terrorism, crime, etc this is what is needed.
Do police invade on your privacy when they watch you to protect laws? They have been doing this for years and years from police cars, technology is better, why not let police use cameras to catch criminals and terrorists?
In your house, sure you have privacy, outside screw privacy, I'll choose safety and security over privacy when it comes to being outside in a public place.
I dont care about what privacy advocates say, hey i'm a privacy advocate too, but i know when things are taken out of context, taken too far.
Kinda like saying people should have the freedom to kill, thats taking freedom a bit too far in my opinion, but i dont make the laws.
Freedom is important, Privacy is important, and yes you should have complete freedom and privacy in your house, but outside, you should have complete security.
Theres no one to protect you if theres no law enforcement, and police cant be everywhere. Do you want your privacy and your freedom to die privately in the next 911, or do you want to be able to walk outside anywhere and know you are completely safe, know if someone tries to rob you they will bee caught, women will be able to walk outside alone at night again without worrying about being raped and children will be able to play alone in the streets without parents having to watch them.
Think of it this way, if you were a child, would you want privacy or security? A child is protected by their parents. Who protects the parents? Protecting yourself wont work much longer, technology is so great that one person can kill thousands, maybe even millions soon.
I dont know any skills that just kick in.
They are developed, just because your brain is wired for it, doesnt mean you use the wiring.
Also usually the brain wires based on what you use.
You learn to think, and your brain becomes better at it, like a muscle, your brain develops.
Thats what the current system refuses to understnand.
Theres no theory on how kids think, just a theory on how the average kid thinks.
accept the fact everyone thinks diffrently, while most people may do best in the enviornment which you project, or in think in the way which you describe,
When i was growing up i wasnt average, i learned in my own way, teachers thought i would be a failure and drop out and i surprised even myself when i graduated with scholarships.
All it took was switching schools to an alternative school which allows a person to learn in whatever way works.
Theres no standard when it comes to thinking, allow a person to think and learn in the way which works best for them, and stop trying to decide which works best for everyone.
Thats what i have to say, the brain develops in diffrent ways for everyone, for me, i'm good at things i never thought i'd be good at, my brain developed in a weird way, i went from being a total failure in school, i went from being a kid who only played video games and did stuff that was fun, to being a computer genius adult who knows a few programming languages and understands the most complex areas of computers, science and technology.
Really i say ask the kid how he wants to learn, and teach him in the way he wants to learn, kids learn best when they are learning by themselves.
funny how a kid can memorize hundreds of pokemon at age 6 yet people think the same kid cant memorize some math or learn programming, its not their brain thats problem, its the style in which they learn stuff, pokemon, video games, toys, that stuff is interesting
if learning was a game, kids would learn faster.
If i were a kid and i could learn any way i wanted, i would choose to learn from video games and computers, i did most of my learning that way and if i would have started as a kid i would know so much more.
so? Maybe the kid doesnt want to add 50 plus 50, honestly, that skill is no longer a needed skill to get a job.
Why focus on what ifs, focus on whats needed for a person to be sucessful, knowing how to calculate 50 plus 50 doesnt matter, what matters is knowing how to get the answer of 50 plus 50, if you cant do it on paper, use a calculator, if you cant use that use pen and paper, if you cant use that, then use an abacus or whatever they call it.
But really, this is not something that you need to do in your head, the workplace does not care how you get solutions to problems, they just want solutions.
I agree you should know the basics, addition, multiplication, subtraction and division, the BASICS.
But i dont think you need to know advanced maths in your head. Use a calculator and master the calculator, it was created for that specific purpose, most adults dont remember all the advanced maths.
I remember the basics, thats all thats needed.
You cant really properly use a computer without knowing basic maths, i mean how can you do stuff if you dont know how to add and subtract.
Oh course people should learn that, mainly so they can handle their finances if they dont have a calculator. However i wouldnt make it a rule, i'd make it an addition. While its good to learn the calculator, its better to learn how the calculator works, i'd teach the kid to use the calculator, then show the kid what the calculator is doing.
make the kids ask questions, because then you know they truely want to learn.
Everyone said it was impossible, now some guy at MIT or whatever says the same idea and now its possible?
Hahaha
It would cost too much money, take too much work, and there would be no incentive for any company to do it.
so how do your kids learn? from the enviornment? you expect them to learn better in a classroom than on the computer?
Well in a classroom you have paper and you do the same problem 10093029 times, some people learn from repetition, some people however dont need to do the same problem 3402940390 times to learn the process of solving the problem and the concepts.
Computers are for certain types of learners, learners who dont need repetition.
Skills dont kick in, they are taught.
I was taught critical thinking, its not like it just kicked in.
Most information in text books are wrong.
Most information in the world is wrong.
By giving a kid the REAL information, alot of it which is wrong but alot of it which is right, you teach your kid how to think. Theres more than one side to every story. Textbooks in highschool never teach that, if you look at a history class using text books, on say cowboys and indians, the indians are the bad guys not the cowboys, but go to an indian reservation and get the other side of the story.
Compare the two sides, the truth is usually a mixture of both.
Word processor? hahahaha
Ok, word processors are ok, but if a kid learns to properly use the internet, nothing compares to that.
Powerpoint is perfect for presentations if a kid knows how to use it.Adults in corperations use power point all the time and they dont get distracted by pretty colors, what are you thinking?
Power point is a tool, a tool that if properly used, can produce good work. Sure a kid can be like "oh cool a computery gadget"
but a kid sitting in front of a text book can do the same thing, space out and daydream all day.
At least by allowing them to be creative you have a better chance at keeping their attention on something thats most likely boring as hell.
Computer a toy? TV is a toy too and schools used TV, pencils can be a toy, when i was in school i would spend my time drawing stuff because yes even the pencil can be a toy.
Paper can be a toy, ive made paper airplanes in class.
Anything can be a toy, the goal is to teach a kid to use it as a tool.
Well thats because kids have to be TAUGHT to use computers to learn, its not going to be instant.
Tell them to use powerpoint, but list the steps.
Research your information using the internet.(gather information)
Create new information from gathered information.(dont forget to spell check)
Create useful graphics to explain the information
The last part, put the information in order.
Before you tell a kid to use powerpoint, find out if the school even teaches a class on powerpoint. If they teach a class on powerpoint then the kids know how to use powerpoint, if they dont, then its your job to give them a crash course on how to use power point.
Its sorta like giving a kid a text book and telling them to use it to learn, some kids will, some wont. Your job isnt to collect work and then grade them, your job is to teach them the proper method to create good work, the way to learn while creating good work to prove they learned.
That should be the goal, not their grade point average, not how much work is completed, but quality work.
I'm not a teacher, but ive had my ups and downs in school, and from experience, my success in school came when i learned how to learn using the tool i was most comfortable with which happened to be computers, not everyone can handle computers, not everyone can handle the text book, but everyone learns somehow and everyone can learn to handle text books or computers.
I did badly in school, and nearly dropped out, I discovered computers, and did a complete turn around, I switched schools to one of those new alternative schools which had alot of computers, 2-3 computers in every classroom and guess what, I nearly made honor roll, graduated with a scholarship etc etc.
I dont think computers matter in first grade as much, first graders however can use computers to help learn certain subjects.
Reading.
Math.
History.
These 3 subjects are easier learned on computers. How do i know? Because i never learned a damn thing about any of these 3 subjects from a text book.
Example of how to get a kid to learn from a computer, send the kid to the computer lab or to the computer inthe classroom, make sure its internet connected. Ask the kid to research say dr martin luther king, the kid will go from website to website and learn the very important art of how to gather information and learn on their own.
The kid will find 4-5 diffrent pages on Martin Luther King, the kid will then write up a paper based on these pages they read complete with bibliography.
After the paper is typed up (this is much much faster than doing draft1, draft2, draft3 in handwriting and teaches your kid how to type)
Your kid learned to type, learned to read, and learned history all at the same time while learning to use the internet and learning to learn without being guided by a text book.
This is how i learned history.
Math can be learned using computers as well, for younger kids an interactive math game would be great. For older kids who know the basics, teaching them computer programming would be great. Computer programming teaches kids to solve problems and thats what math really is, it also teaches attention to detail, something most people dont learn until they get a job and get forced to learn it.
Reading, the best thing a computer can teach, is reading. Let the kid browse the net for fun, knowing all during this time the kid is learning to read.
Honestly, I learned to read from playinng role playing games on my Nintendo, reading magazines for video games, and other fun stuff.
People learn to read when they discover somethinng that interests them and dont know how to understand it.People do not learn to read by using coloring books, and reading generic childrens books, people also dont like being forced to read.
With computers, everyone can read exactly what they want, a teacher can be around to help guide them, when they find words they dont know (I still do this evven now) Teach them to go to a dictionary search page and enter the world and now they know what it means. Using classic dictionaries are slower and its silly for kids to be forced to learn about words they already know (Open book and go look up these words and write the definition) The kid learns nothing doing repetitive tasks.
How do I konw? Because i didnt learn much in school mainly due to boring repetitive tasks, If i do something once or twice, i know it, i dont need to practice it for weeks, the internet would allow someone to prove they know what they know, you cant use computers if you dont know reading and math, and the act of using the net unless its for pornography, is research.
All a brain does is create ideas.
Basically its what we were designed to do.
Money wont make you create any more or less than you'd naturally create, it would just perhaps give you incentive to create a product based on it.
Creating the idea and sharing it allows others to create the product when they need to. Ideas will always be created, its a natural ability.
Why should people be paid for doing what they'll do for free?
People share ideas when theres no incentive to sell them.
Linux is a perfect example, theres many others.
Competition does not equal innovation, in some situations it can help it and in some situations it can harm it.
Patents do not help people in third worlds at all, they cant get venture capital at all, they lack the information needed.
To the guy who mentioned they are ignortance, ignorance is lack of knowledge, when knowledge has a price often people cannot afford to not be ignorant.
Some kid who cant afford a book wont learn to read, wont learn math, i mean afterall college isnt free, and neither are books, when information has a price, people with money can buy thier way out of ignorance, people without it, are out of luck.
Its not a fair playing ground.
Last but not least, big companies arent needed to form ideas, and if you have an idea and want to make a product, you keep the idea, you make a prototype, then there could be a law which allows you to sign an NDA with the company, the two of you can then turn your idea into a product and it would be illegal for them to reveal your idea however once the product is made, your idea is released to the world and your product must be the best to continue selling.
Imagine a world, where you can take the source code from any program ever written and add it to your own.
This would improve innovation because less time would be spent reinventing the wheel. You'd have better higher quality programs, you'd have more programs.
It will be proven via the success of linux, that patents on software is bad for progress.
Ever wonder why Linux in a few years caught up to Windows in every area except maybe 1 or 2? Its because in linux everyone shared software. Because its open source, people didnt have to reinvent the wheel even though they still do, people dont have to.
Now imagine a world where billions of people are programmers all writing solutions to problems, programming would turn into "Insert solution here for search algorithm" "Insert solution here for distributed networking" "Insert and combine solution here to create new solution"
It would make programming more like science or chemistry, it would be mixing and matching, combining and building, and less design issues and problem solving. Programs would be less buggy, would run faster, the quality level would increase and because people dont have to reinvest the wheel the innovation would increase. There would be more programmers because programming would be easier, and last but not lease a program would run in all Os's because all Os's are open source and compatible with each other.
This is the world we'd have without IP.
Social security is being destroyed as we speak, 1 trllion dollar tax cut = destruction of social security.
health care wont be here much longer either, tax cuts.
subsidized houses and minimum wage, worker unions. These might stay, and i say might.
While we may not be 100 percent pure capitalist, if it were up to george bush and the right wing republicans, we would be 100 percent pure capitalist.
IP leads to mind control. In about 20 maybe 30 years when we can communicate via thoughts through a brain to computer interface. (I know less intelligent people will consider this sci fi but its going to happen)
WHEN it happens, what will happen to IP?
How will it be enforced?
NDA will that include it being illegal to share your thoughts?
People refuse to look ahead into the futre, the future if it continues will cause us to lose our freedom of thought in the same way we have lost our freedom of information. If thought to thought communication is the next internet, and if information on the internet isnt even 100 percent free with people like the RIAA and MPAA trying to remove freedom. Imagine the MPAA and RIAA in the future, if you listen to your favorite song and try to memorize it and repeat it in your head, nope, that will be illegal and you'll be fined by the RIAA.
You see in a world where every peice of information is under IP, and in a world of high technology, and superior communication to what we have now, without absolute freedom, it will be living hell.
The internet is about giving freedom not taking it away, the internet is about expressing our thoughts, telling a person what they cant do with their thoughts should not be legal, saying "you cant make software which breaks DMCA" should be illegal because you are preventing a person from expressing their thoughts.
What next? Making it illegal for men to cry because its deemed illegal, oh yeah crying is patented and you'll be fined by the RIAA for having such an emotion. You see how stupid IP laws are? The idea of owning an emotion sounds stupid, the idea of owning a thought sounds stupid, how is owning an idea any diffrent?
Information control leads to thought control.
When we have the ability to communicate via thoughts, will there be a law saying "That thought is patented"
I'm sure we will see patented thoughts, and some thoughts will be illegal, you'll have police arresting you for thinking bad thoughts, you'll get sued for thinking of thoughts which have owners, and you'll pay a fine for thinking of thoughts which are deemed as dangerous.
wrong i never said get rid of capitalism.
I said make it fair.
You should still get paid for your WORK.
You should never get paid for your THOUGHTS and IDEAS.
Work deserves money, not ideas.
You have an idea, you keep it to yourself, you make a product and you sell the product based on your idea.
You want to write software? You write a few samples then you tell people to pay you and if they pay you to write more software you keep writing it, transgaming style.
Music can work as a service as well via channels like TV.
What i'm saying is, find new ways to profit, i'm not saying no one can profit, i'm not saying theres no incentive. I'm saying find new ways to profit.
Profit on services, make money on actual physical products, make money on hard work, no one should make money from ideas.
If you dont think of an idea, someone else will, ideas spread naturally, people share them for free if you dont pay them, its not like some guys going to have an idea and sit on it because he cant get paid, if he cant get paid for the idea he will tell his friends who tell their friends until someone decides to use it.
Where do you think Microsoft got their ideas from? Open source software, or stole it from closed source companies who got their ideas from open source software.
TCPIP, the windows kernel, everything is based off of something thats already been done.
The problem is, this isnt a free market.
Since rich people control the information, the rich get richer by exploiting the information which they have.
Hows it free? I'll believe in capitalism with IP when i start seeing poor people from third world countries starting companies and beating our companies.
Afterall we are outnumbered, its kinda funny we are the ones benifiting from capitalism and no one else.
Maybe thats because we have the unfair advantage of already being rich, already controlling most of the information in the world, having all the patents and having enough monopolies to maintain the unfair advantage.
Thats why the global economy idea will never work, good on paper, bad in practice.
Poor people do not have information to educate themselves to our level giving us the unfair advantage, a kid who cant afford books to the quality of ours, who cant even afford medicine to stay healthy enough is too busy trying to survive to think about innovative stuff.
It will always be like that as long as we control information.
Millions of people in third world countries dying because of patents on drugs.
Kids and adults lacking intelligence due to patents on information which could enlighten the world.
Innovation controlled by big corperations using patents, and all for a profit, milk the old technology for 40 years or more until profits force you to change.
Government controlled by companies like Enron who take advantage of the flaws in the system.
Criminals and organized crime taking advantage of capitalism, people being killed for a buck, and wars being faught over money issues.
Whens it going to end? Capitalism is fine, but too much of anything is bad. When will people figure out, too much capitalism, too much competition, and not enough sharing is bad? Yes moderate competition fuels innovation, too much competition however makes the enviornment so competitive that no one can innovate.
Imagine the innovation and the new technologies we'd have, if third world countries had access to all the information in the world, and any kid rich or poor could be the next einstien or bill gates, any living person, any of the 6 billion people could come out with an idea, which changes the world and shares the idea for free.
Money needs to be made people say, just because you share an idea doesnt mean you'll turn that idea into a product. The product is what people buy, the service is what people pay for, not the idea or the information.
My opinion is, more focus should be on sharing information, less focus on competiton, more focus on ways to earn money from hard work and not from information, ideas, or earning money from having money.
We also need to fix the problems in our government, the current administration is just a joke, they got into office in a suspicious manner, and now we here stuff about Eron, corruption within the government should be removed, it will be difficult but its possible.
And you are talking about capitalism.
First we are a republic.
Second we are capitalist, absolute capitalist in fact. So capitalist that we hurt ourselves to make money, kill each other to make money, and kill innovation for a profit (microsoft for example)
people should be paid for services not for information or ideas.
information should not have a price. The service of producing the information, well, that should have a price.
once something is made its free, before its made, you pay someone to make it.
wrong, most of the technology created for the net except for the hardware stuff was all open source.
We went closed source and technology and innovation slowed down as microsoft got a firmer grip on the industry. There hasnt been any innovation in years.