Is Vinton Cerf affiliated with this product? If not, can he sue them for using his name and implying that he's connected with the product? (I'm sure some Slashdotters will say no, any name out there is fair game, information wants to be free, etc. etc.)
Not sure if you are addressing me, but I wasn't disputing that DMCA was not made and enforced by business. I was disputing the other poster's contention that, in its most generally accepted meaning, the term "corporatism" means "politics made and enforced by business."
I'm not so much trying to get Katz's goat as to enforce a greater precision in the use of the terminology.... It's hard enough to exchange ideas when we don't use this type of terminology capriciously.
Maybe I missed where Katz talked about trade unions? Hmm.
My earlier response applies. Katz clearly isn't talking about "corporatism" in the generally accepted meaning of the term; he's talking about another idea altogether, call it "corporate-ism."
IANAPS (I am not a political scientist) and I haven't read the Saul book, but are you suggesting that the business-driven society Katz refers to as "corporatism" is actually "fascism," thus validating his use of the term "corporatism"? I don't quite understand your point.
You can make an argument that what Katz calls "corporatism" (or corporate-ism), is a form of corporatism (in that interests are channeled through institutions), but to me it seems clear that is not what he means when he applies the term.
Katz apparently thinks he has coined this term "corporatism" to refer to rampant pro-business policies. However, the word "corporatism" is already used widely to mean something very different. Katz, I implore you, come up with a new word, to avoid confusion. It's as if I decided suddenly to start using the word "socialism" to refer to the social hierarchy that makes some people popular and others unpopular.
Let's not forget that fuel consumption and emissions are not the only environmental impact a vehicle has over its lifecycle. You also have to take into account the energy and materials it takes to build the car and dispose of the car and the energy and materials it took to produce, store, and transport and store the fuel, etc.
Alternative energy cars are not automatically superior to regular gasoline-powered cars, particularly if you're deciding between continuing to drive a gas-powered vehicle you already have and ditching your perfectly good gas-powered vehicle in favor of an alternative-powered vehicle.
Imagine if literary critics could only quote from lower-fidelity works, say, text that has been artificially corrupted with "noise":
"Hap7y fam7lies are all alik2, but ea4h un3appy fami6y is unh8ppy in its own way."
Imagine if literary critics could only quote from lower-fidelity works, say, text that has been artificially corrupted with "noise":
"Hap7y fam7lies are all alik2, but ea4h unh3ppy f2mily is un3appy in its own way."
Don't we need copyright to defend copyleft? What is to prevent Evil Software Co., Inc. from picking up the code to a piece of GPL'ed software, improving on it, and then selling binaries based on the modified code, keeping the source code to itself?
Also, think about this part of the GPL:
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
What irony? There is room for both types of sites. The world would be an awful place if Slashdot-type sites were the only way you could get news. For one thing, Slashdot would have a lot less stuff to point to. And think of how many "stories" have been posted on Slashdot that turned out to be partially or completely wrong (all the false alarms of Mozilla milestone releases, for example, or confusing a denial of certiorari with a "Supreme Court ruling"). The major news media is (rightly) criticized when their reporting is off, like when they erroneously called the Florida election early. For sites like Slashdot, mistakes like that are par for the course. That doesn't make Slashdot bad, but it proves we need both kinds of sites.
The Simple Economics of Open Source, a Harvard Business School / NBER working paper downloadable at
http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/publications.htm l
Slashdot Mirror
Is Vinton Cerf affiliated with this product? If not, can he sue them for using his name and implying that he's connected with the product? (I'm sure some Slashdotters will say no, any name out there is fair game, information wants to be free, etc. etc.)
Not sure if you are addressing me, but I wasn't disputing that DMCA was not made and enforced by business. I was disputing the other poster's contention that, in its most generally accepted meaning, the term "corporatism" means "politics made and enforced by business."
I'm not so much trying to get Katz's goat as to enforce a greater precision in the use of the terminology.... It's hard enough to exchange ideas when we don't use this type of terminology capriciously.
Maybe I missed where Katz talked about trade unions? Hmm. My earlier response applies. Katz clearly isn't talking about "corporatism" in the generally accepted meaning of the term; he's talking about another idea altogether, call it "corporate-ism."
"Corporatism is politics made and enforced by business"? You must have seen a different page than the one I linked to, or else not actually read it.
IANAPS (I am not a political scientist) and I haven't read the Saul book, but are you suggesting that the business-driven society Katz refers to as "corporatism" is actually "fascism," thus validating his use of the term "corporatism"? I don't quite understand your point. You can make an argument that what Katz calls "corporatism" (or corporate-ism), is a form of corporatism (in that interests are channeled through institutions), but to me it seems clear that is not what he means when he applies the term.
No. Did you even follow the link in my post?
Katz apparently thinks he has coined this term "corporatism" to refer to rampant pro-business policies. However, the word "corporatism" is already used widely to mean something very different. Katz, I implore you, come up with a new word, to avoid confusion. It's as if I decided suddenly to start using the word "socialism" to refer to the social hierarchy that makes some people popular and others unpopular.
Let's not forget that fuel consumption and emissions are not the only environmental impact a vehicle has over its lifecycle. You also have to take into account the energy and materials it takes to build the car and dispose of the car and the energy and materials it took to produce, store, and transport and store the fuel, etc. Alternative energy cars are not automatically superior to regular gasoline-powered cars, particularly if you're deciding between continuing to drive a gas-powered vehicle you already have and ditching your perfectly good gas-powered vehicle in favor of an alternative-powered vehicle.
Imagine if literary critics could only quote from lower-fidelity works, say, text that has been artificially corrupted with "noise": "Hap7y fam7lies are all alik2, but ea4h un3appy fami6y is unh8ppy in its own way."
Imagine if literary critics could only quote from lower-fidelity works, say, text that has been artificially corrupted with "noise": "Hap7y fam7lies are all alik2, but ea4h unh3ppy f2mily is un3appy in its own way."
Don't we need copyright to defend copyleft? What is to prevent Evil Software Co., Inc. from picking up the code to a piece of GPL'ed software, improving on it, and then selling binaries based on the modified code, keeping the source code to itself? Also, think about this part of the GPL:
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
What irony? There is room for both types of sites. The world would be an awful place if Slashdot-type sites were the only way you could get news. For one thing, Slashdot would have a lot less stuff to point to. And think of how many "stories" have been posted on Slashdot that turned out to be partially or completely wrong (all the false alarms of Mozilla milestone releases, for example, or confusing a denial of certiorari with a "Supreme Court ruling"). The major news media is (rightly) criticized when their reporting is off, like when they erroneously called the Florida election early. For sites like Slashdot, mistakes like that are par for the course. That doesn't make Slashdot bad, but it proves we need both kinds of sites.
The Simple Economics of Open Source, a Harvard Business School / NBER working paper downloadable at http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/publications.htm l