In practice it doesn't always work that way, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should figure out how to prevent abuse, not get rid of the system entirely.
Since copyright infringes upon free speech rights, and both patents and copyright infringe upon private property rights and are anti-free market, they should be opposed no matter how 'effective' they are. Just like it wouldn't be okay for government thugs to molest people at airports (TSA) even if they did stop terrorists.
But really, you merely stated that copyrights and patents do have a purpose, but you didn't provide proof of this claim. Again, the burden of proof is on people who propose laws or defend exists laws that were created without using the scientific method to determine their efficacy. So... without resorting to speculation, can you scientifically prove that copyrights and patents are beneficial to society? For me, this is merely a curiosity, and I'd oppose them no matter what (since they violate people's rights), but offering proof is the least people could do. Also, please don't "refer to societies that were vastly different than our own in a number of other ways."
It's funny how people just put forth mindless speculation when trying to show how the world would be without patents or copyright. The fact is, patents restrict private property rights (Can't use your own resources in a way that infringes upon someone's little monopoly!), and by default, laws don't exist, so the burden of proof is on you people. Yet, you can present no scientific evidence that patents are beneficial; all you do is speculate, and sometimes refer to societies that were vastly different than our own in a number of other ways.
Instead of voting for evil pieces of shit, I choose to vote for someone who isn't an evil piece of shit, or at least one that hasn't shown themselves to be. That means voting for third parties.
That's true. But given the number of college students who have no idea what they're doing, I'd be hesitant to take a degree as proof of anything important. But I'll admit that many employers do take it as proof.
I know that there are many worthless employers/HR drones who require you to have degrees before they'll even look at you, but there do exist ones who will actually test your knowledge. That approach also has the benefit (I'm told) of eliminating 99% of college graduates, as they have no idea what they're doing, anyway.
If you want people to be "well-educated," you definitely shouldn't be schooling them; that only provides a mediocre education at best, and an awful one at worst. Sadly, though, it'll probably have to do; most people aren't intelligent enough to be "well-educated," anyway.
The structured, rigid environment is part of the problem for some people. Furthermore, you hardly need to have a piece of paper to have worked in teams or have done papers. Since knowledge doesn't exist only in colleges and universities, you could do all of this on your own if you're not an unmotivated, unintelligent loser.
At any rate, it shouldn't be for the countless losers that are just dumbing it down now. The "Everybody needs to go to college" garbage is just making colleges worse and more expensive, thanks to all the trash they're letting in.
Eighth grade? More like first grade. The questions don't test for understanding at all; just rote memorization. I fear most people wouldn't even come close to being able to handle questions that actually tested their understanding.
I recommend reading up on polygraphs; they're mere pseudoscience. You're lucky you passed; if you were nervous, you might not have, regardless of whether or not you did steal anything.
We have zero evidence of what the world would be like without the Sun, although some people conjecture it would get cold and dark.
Hey, look! Actual science could tell you that, given what we know about the universe. How about we try real science before creating laws, hm?
Exact same logic as you're using.
And your logic seems to be that the two situations are the same, but they're not. You're assuming that alternate business strategies wouldn't be around without copyright, that free software development is comparable to for-profit software development (though sometimes they overlap).
You're so desperate to 'prove' that copyright is effect even in the complete absence of evidence that that's the case that you're resorting to baseless speculation and calling it fact, and then you attack me by creating ridiculous comparisons that have already been settled with real science, unlike the situation with your precious copyright laws.
What are you talking about? The point is that, by its very nature, the TSA violates people's rights and the constitution. Working there is inherently unethical, and as far as I'm concerned, the TSA agents who stop people for such things are in the wrong simply because the government shouldn't be securing airports like that to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to think that people have some kind of government granted right to choice, they do not.
You seem to think that the constitution is a blacklist of things the government can't do; it is not.
Did that regulation restrict my liberty?
Yes.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
In practice it doesn't always work that way, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We should figure out how to prevent abuse, not get rid of the system entirely.
Since copyright infringes upon free speech rights, and both patents and copyright infringe upon private property rights and are anti-free market, they should be opposed no matter how 'effective' they are. Just like it wouldn't be okay for government thugs to molest people at airports (TSA) even if they did stop terrorists.
But really, you merely stated that copyrights and patents do have a purpose, but you didn't provide proof of this claim. Again, the burden of proof is on people who propose laws or defend exists laws that were created without using the scientific method to determine their efficacy. So... without resorting to speculation, can you scientifically prove that copyrights and patents are beneficial to society? For me, this is merely a curiosity, and I'd oppose them no matter what (since they violate people's rights), but offering proof is the least people could do. Also, please don't "refer to societies that were vastly different than our own in a number of other ways."
It's funny how people just put forth mindless speculation when trying to show how the world would be without patents or copyright. The fact is, patents restrict private property rights (Can't use your own resources in a way that infringes upon someone's little monopoly!), and by default, laws don't exist, so the burden of proof is on you people. Yet, you can present no scientific evidence that patents are beneficial; all you do is speculate, and sometimes refer to societies that were vastly different than our own in a number of other ways.
They should never be using Facebook, either.
The last thing anyone needs is more legislation controlling what kinds of deals people are or are not allowed to make.
Yeah, then things like this wouldn't happen, and people wouldn't be able to hide all the bad shit they did. How horrible.
Actually, it sounds like this is the first thing we need in this case.
It wasn't me who called it that to begin with.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
I don't want an "Industry trained" architect designing my bridge anymore than I want an "Industry trained" person designing life saving systems.
You probably don't want a college/university 'educated' one, either.
Though, I'm surprised it was only uncomfortable "sometimes."
Instead of voting for evil pieces of shit, I choose to vote for someone who isn't an evil piece of shit, or at least one that hasn't shown themselves to be. That means voting for third parties.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
That's true. But given the number of college students who have no idea what they're doing, I'd be hesitant to take a degree as proof of anything important. But I'll admit that many employers do take it as proof.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
I know that there are many worthless employers/HR drones who require you to have degrees before they'll even look at you, but there do exist ones who will actually test your knowledge. That approach also has the benefit (I'm told) of eliminating 99% of college graduates, as they have no idea what they're doing, anyway.
If you want people to be "well-educated," you definitely shouldn't be schooling them; that only provides a mediocre education at best, and an awful one at worst. Sadly, though, it'll probably have to do; most people aren't intelligent enough to be "well-educated," anyway.
The structured, rigid environment is part of the problem for some people. Furthermore, you hardly need to have a piece of paper to have worked in teams or have done papers. Since knowledge doesn't exist only in colleges and universities, you could do all of this on your own if you're not an unmotivated, unintelligent loser.
At any rate, it shouldn't be for the countless losers that are just dumbing it down now. The "Everybody needs to go to college" garbage is just making colleges worse and more expensive, thanks to all the trash they're letting in.
Eighth grade? More like first grade. The questions don't test for understanding at all; just rote memorization. I fear most people wouldn't even come close to being able to handle questions that actually tested their understanding.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
We both passed the polygraph, not surprisingly.
I recommend reading up on polygraphs; they're mere pseudoscience. You're lucky you passed; if you were nervous, you might not have, regardless of whether or not you did steal anything.
We have zero evidence of what the world would be like without the Sun, although some people conjecture it would get cold and dark.
Hey, look! Actual science could tell you that, given what we know about the universe. How about we try real science before creating laws, hm?
Exact same logic as you're using.
And your logic seems to be that the two situations are the same, but they're not. You're assuming that alternate business strategies wouldn't be around without copyright, that free software development is comparable to for-profit software development (though sometimes they overlap).
You're so desperate to 'prove' that copyright is effect even in the complete absence of evidence that that's the case that you're resorting to baseless speculation and calling it fact, and then you attack me by creating ridiculous comparisons that have already been settled with real science, unlike the situation with your precious copyright laws.
What are you talking about? The point is that, by its very nature, the TSA violates people's rights and the constitution. Working there is inherently unethical, and as far as I'm concerned, the TSA agents who stop people for such things are in the wrong simply because the government shouldn't be securing airports like that to begin with.
Since nobody is being forced to do this procedure, the question is whether restricting a medical procedure actually restricts one's freedom to act.
Restricting this would eliminate one possible choice, which restricts people's freedom. Random rationalizations won't change anything. The end.