Nothing. The point about evolution is correct -- it invalidates the original poster's claim that other species might not be interested in "spreading their seed".
No shit, Sherlock. Magic Lantern is the payload, not the virus itself.
The point is that the FBI will probably try to hitch ML to some sort of exploit or virus in order to install it on a target machine. Otherwise, they'd need to physically sneak into your house, which is obviously more of a hassle (for them and for us).
for every one idea you loose control over, there are billions that you would have access to without cost that you wouldn't have before
Well that's pretty much the Communist paradigm in a nutshell, isn't it? Probably won't get very far with that argument in this day and age.
copyrights are massive monopolies, because any one copyright you get automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people arround the world who are not allowed to copy and redistribute that information
That's just silly. When I buy a piece of land, that also "automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people" who aren't allowed to trespass on it. I don't think anyone could reasonably call my ownership of that land a "massive monopoly". Ditto for my IP.
Tell me this, Mr. Marx, if I don't have control over my ideas, who does? The government?
Interesting idea. IANAL so I can't really say if you're right. Has this ever been tested in court? I don't think so.
You're definitely wrong about one thing, though. Typically, the seller != the software publisher. Joe User buys a CD (a physical object) from CompUSA. There is no doubt that the CD now belongs to Joe. When Joe opens the box he (implicitly) licenses the software therein from the publisher. So, technically, it seems like there are two separate transactions here. No?
The phsical disk is yours, but the software on it has only been licensed to you. If you violate the license (or steal the software outright), it's your problem.
I'm not saying I like it, but that's the difference between licensing and owning something.
I think you've got this backwards. Antritrust laws were written to protect consumers (i.e. citizens), not competitors. Standard Oil was broken up because they would jack their prices back up after eliminating the competition.
people didn't just pull property rights out of their nose
Correct. And people didn't just pull intellectual property rights out of their noses, either. In a society where ideas are becoming as valuable as physical objects, is it any surprise that IP rights have evolved?
copyrights by their very nature are massive monopolies
Okay, I'll bite. How is my copyright on my own work a "massive monopoly"?
But, really, how often do artists sue each other? You really see it as a major impediment to great art?
I think there are probably other solutions to the problems of intellectual property rather than just eliminating the entire concept. For example, what if we made copyright non-transferable? Or if we said that corporations cannot hold copyrights?
Society has been progressing at regular rate long before "intellectual property". The entire renissance happened without it.
I suppose that's true, but I think it's a pretty weak argument. To show you, I'll echo your point back to you with a minor tweak:
Society progressed at a regular rate long before "property". 95% of human history happened without it.
The very notion of "rights" (including "property") is a fairly recent invention in human history, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
I don't see any reason to believe that the existence of intellectual property rights would have hindered the Renaissance -- or helped it much either. These days, however, information and ideas are much more mobile, so the need for such rights seems that much greater.
Why do you interpret this to mean that I'm in favor of "massive monopolies"? I can tell you that I'm not.
Look at this another way - what would things look like if the sun went around the earth? From our vantage point - exactly the same.
WTF? If this were true, Galileo's heliocentric model would have no merit.
In fact, there are subtle but detectable differences in the two models (just like in the neutrino experiment under discussion). For example, the paths of the planets (including their "retrograde motion") could not be adequately explained in the geocentric model.
As a side-effect many girl babies have beened abandoned or killed, but from a big picture kind of view, the chinese may have saved the planet from a population explosion crisis.
I think I'd prefer the population explosion, but thanks anyway.
Thanks, but that fits the analogy. The big stuff in the Windows GUI has not changed either. Only the little stuff changed (akin to moving the windshiled wiper and headlight controls around). Plus everything now has walnut trim. Big whoop.
I think you're missing the point that both Windows and Word have expanded massively over the years. It wouldn't surprise me at all, not one bit, to learn that Word 95 runs slower on WinXP than on Win95.
Why in the world would WinXP be any faster (from a typical GUI app's point of view) than Win95? You think Microsoft is busy optimizing all those Win32 APIs? I don't -- they're busy inventing new ones (and thus surely complicating, not optimizing, the code in the old ones).
You're right of course -- it takes a few clicks to get to the dialog where you can revert to the previous GUI with a single click. You have know where to look to find it.
On the other hand, it's kind of ironic to see a bunch of hardcore Linux fans complain about how hard it's going to be for people to figure out the new Windows GUI. For people who "get" software, it ain't hard -- it's akin to learning the layout of the controls of a new car (which also, coincidentally, get moved around with each new model year).
The differences in the new XP GUI and the old Me/2K GUI are very superficial and easy to learn. You can even set XP to use the old GUI with a single click.
Slashdot Mirror
You can include me in that list. I saw it on TV first and only then discovered the book.
There's lots of cool info on the movie here.
-- Brian
I suppose The Left Hand of Darkness is okay, but The Lathe of Heaven is her best book. I've read it five or six times and am blown away each time.
-- Brian
Dig the Beautiful South quote. Love that song.
-- Brian
Nothing. The point about evolution is correct -- it invalidates the original poster's claim that other species might not be interested in "spreading their seed".
-- Brian
Good points (except for the point about evolution made in the previous reply).
You might also add that other species may have decided not to contact or reveal themselves to us.
-- Brian
No shit, Sherlock. Magic Lantern is the payload, not the virus itself.
The point is that the FBI will probably try to hitch ML to some sort of exploit or virus in order to install it on a target machine. Otherwise, they'd need to physically sneak into your house, which is obviously more of a hassle (for them and for us).
-- Brian
for every one idea you loose control over, there are billions that you would have access to without cost that you wouldn't have before
Well that's pretty much the Communist paradigm in a nutshell, isn't it? Probably won't get very far with that argument in this day and age.
copyrights are massive monopolies, because any one copyright you get automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people arround the world who are not allowed to copy and redistribute that information
That's just silly. When I buy a piece of land, that also "automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people" who aren't allowed to trespass on it. I don't think anyone could reasonably call my ownership of that land a "massive monopoly". Ditto for my IP.
Tell me this, Mr. Marx, if I don't have control over my ideas, who does? The government?
-- Brian
Interesting idea. IANAL so I can't really say if you're right. Has this ever been tested in court? I don't think so.
You're definitely wrong about one thing, though. Typically, the seller != the software publisher. Joe User buys a CD (a physical object) from CompUSA. There is no doubt that the CD now belongs to Joe. When Joe opens the box he (implicitly) licenses the software therein from the publisher. So, technically, it seems like there are two separate transactions here. No?
-- Brian
The phsical disk is yours, but the software on it has only been licensed to you. If you violate the license (or steal the software outright), it's your problem.
I'm not saying I like it, but that's the difference between licensing and owning something.
-- Brian
The point is that you don't lose a copyright just because you decide not to enforce it in some situations.
Compare with trademarks, which can be lost if they are not consistently protected.
-- Brian
I think you've got this backwards. Antritrust laws were written to protect consumers (i.e. citizens), not competitors. Standard Oil was broken up because they would jack their prices back up after eliminating the competition.
-- Brian
people didn't just pull property rights out of their nose
Correct. And people didn't just pull intellectual property rights out of their noses, either. In a society where ideas are becoming as valuable as physical objects, is it any surprise that IP rights have evolved?
copyrights by their very nature are massive monopolies
Okay, I'll bite. How is my copyright on my own work a "massive monopoly"?
-- Brian
But, really, how often do artists sue each other? You really see it as a major impediment to great art?
I think there are probably other solutions to the problems of intellectual property rather than just eliminating the entire concept. For example, what if we made copyright non-transferable? Or if we said that corporations cannot hold copyrights?
-- Brian
Society has been progressing at regular rate long before "intellectual property". The entire renissance happened without it.
I suppose that's true, but I think it's a pretty weak argument. To show you, I'll echo your point back to you with a minor tweak:
The very notion of "rights" (including "property") is a fairly recent invention in human history, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
I don't see any reason to believe that the existence of intellectual property rights would have hindered the Renaissance -- or helped it much either. These days, however, information and ideas are much more mobile, so the need for such rights seems that much greater.
Why do you interpret this to mean that I'm in favor of "massive monopolies"? I can tell you that I'm not.
-- Brian
So you don't believe in any sort of "intellectual property" rights at all? That seems like a good way to snuff the Information Age in its infancy.
-- Brian
[Assuming optimistically that you're not a troll.]
Are you not familiar with the concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty"? I know it's a bit out of fashion these days, but still...
-- Brian
Look at this another way - what would things look like if the sun went around the earth? From our vantage point - exactly the same.
WTF? If this were true, Galileo's heliocentric model would have no merit.
In fact, there are subtle but detectable differences in the two models (just like in the neutrino experiment under discussion). For example, the paths of the planets (including their "retrograde motion") could not be adequately explained in the geocentric model.
-- Brian
Not one of your best trolls. Try again.
-- Brian
No, I'm sorry. Being opposed to murder isn't a "borrowed moral". There actually are some things worse than over-population. Murder is one of them.
-- Brian
As a side-effect many girl babies have beened abandoned or killed, but from a big picture kind of view, the chinese may have saved the planet from a population explosion crisis.
I think I'd prefer the population explosion, but thanks anyway.
-- Brian
Thanks, but that fits the analogy. The big stuff in the Windows GUI has not changed either. Only the little stuff changed (akin to moving the windshiled wiper and headlight controls around). Plus everything now has walnut trim. Big whoop.
-- Brian
I think you're missing the point that both Windows and Word have expanded massively over the years. It wouldn't surprise me at all, not one bit, to learn that Word 95 runs slower on WinXP than on Win95.
Why in the world would WinXP be any faster (from a typical GUI app's point of view) than Win95? You think Microsoft is busy optimizing all those Win32 APIs? I don't -- they're busy inventing new ones (and thus surely complicating, not optimizing, the code in the old ones).
-- Brian
Thank you for making my point. There's a reason that people upgrade OS's and it's got nothing to do with the raw speed of the apps.
-- Brian
You're right of course -- it takes a few clicks to get to the dialog where you can revert to the previous GUI with a single click. You have know where to look to find it.
On the other hand, it's kind of ironic to see a bunch of hardcore Linux fans complain about how hard it's going to be for people to figure out the new Windows GUI. For people who "get" software, it ain't hard -- it's akin to learning the layout of the controls of a new car (which also, coincidentally, get moved around with each new model year).
-- Brian
The differences in the new XP GUI and the old Me/2K GUI are very superficial and easy to learn. You can even set XP to use the old GUI with a single click.
-- Brian