The primary inventor of Mach is a certain person known as... Avis Tevanian (sp?) He worked for a ununusual lil' company called NeXT. Gee I wonder what he did there?
he took the code that he worked on as a student at CMU and turned it commercial. Rashid, his boss and lead of the mach project at CMU, ended up at Microsoft. __
two fundamental human rights: i can think what i want, my memories are my own. i do have the right to collect information on people i see and meet and to remember them so i can decide if i want to trust them next time i meet them. "privacy law" would appear to prevent me from exchanging this information with my family and friends for mutual benefit. this is bad.
anonymity is something that you can achieve by your own actions (ie, encryption), not something you legislate into other people's actions.
i haven't read brin's book, but i read some essays he wrote several years ago on the same idea. i agreed with him then, and i still do. kspace brin page __
"The right of the people... against unreasonable searches and seizures""
And this has traditionally been used to protect privacy.
total bogosity. "privacy" laws generally have nothing to do with search and seizure, they are about restricting people's right to exhange databases about other people. __
scott is right. the reaction to the pentium iii id is bogus. we already have ethernet addresses anyway. give up your silly notions of privacy. if you understand the power of freely copied software, then you should grok that databases will trade information about you and know you. at the same time, the right to be anonymous or to use an alias is fundamental. but so is the right to track someone else to discover their true name if you can. __
Copyright doesn't prevent fraud, but it does provide a means of obtaining restitution if fraud occurs.
no. copyright violation has nothing to do with fraud. i could be in total violation of copyright and not commit any fraud at all. if i could make a copy and acknowledge the source, there is no fraud, but it still violates copyright.
Copyright isn't a government redistribution of wealth. It's a way of insuring that someone is properly rewarded for their effort.
you just contradicted yourself. you said it's not redistribution, and then you said it is but it's justified. i challenge you to justify it on pragmatic grounds. the burden is yours since it clearly violates principles of privacy and self-determination. remember to count the downside of criminalizing most of the population, invasions of privacy, selective enforcement, concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, etc.
What if you put your name on code written by someone else....
you appear to be primarily concerned with plagerism, not the copying itself. that is a side issue.
a lot of people are afraid that without copyright someone else will get rich of their idea. but argument applies to that other person too: as soon as they start to make money from an idea, other people will notice and copy it themselves. the result is that everyone gets a little rich from it, and those closest to the creation of the idea get the richest from it since they have a head start.
i am a capitalist. i am against government redistribution of wealth. and that is why i oppose copyright: it is a government program to channel money from the people to those dubbed "innovative" and "creative" by government bureaucracies.
you have a right to their code and ideas?
that's not what i'm saying. i have no right to force them to tell me their ideas. i am saying that they have no right to prevent me from using what they claim are "their ideas", but i could have gotten the information from anywhere (maybe from them, maybe not, maybe indirectly. it doesn't matter). the fundamental principle at work is non-initiation of force. coypright violates that principle (and many others).
how would you like me taking your doctor's thesis and changing your name to mine and then selling it as my own?
if you succeed, i suppose i would have to be envious of your salsemanship:). but really, to sell a document and claim authorship sounds like fraud to me, you might want to avoid that. but really, feel free to ruin your own reputation.
But there has, for a long time, been a realization that inventors and writers and artists need to be protected from others' fraud damaging them.
copyright does not protect against fraud. and it depends on what you mean by "a long time". for a much longer time, there was no protection and invention flourished. think about the Renaissance. __
i am out of academia. i believe copyright is wrong. you are quick to critisize, but there is no substance to your posts. copyright cannot be justified except as a subsidy. are you for that? __
i disagree. IP is simply a government subsidy. it comes with its mega-corporate lobbiests (disney, microsoft, riaa, etc), and bureaucratic dimwits in symbiotic relationship. see ipnot for some discussion of why anyone who cares about freedom must oppose IP law.
copyright is the source of the next war on drugs.
information is free, the only question is, are you? __
I can't think of anybody "just out of college" who works here. There are some right out of grad school, but most are veteran engineers. None were involved in "theoretical computer science". __
If you really want a pure free market then you can't have copyrights or patents.
amen!
i pisses me off to no end when i hear the MS apologists rant on about "government interference" when in fact MS entire business is based on copyright, which is massive government interference. __
Slashdot Mirror
this isn't capitalism, it's extorsion and racketeering.
__
__
anonymity is something that you can achieve by your own actions (ie, encryption), not something you legislate into other people's actions.
i haven't read brin's book, but i read some essays he wrote several years ago on the same idea. i agreed with him then, and i still do. kspace brin page
__
linus should get a macarthur fellowship so he can do linux fulltime.
__
they could make money with a better license.
__
__
until then, this thing is pure hype.
__
scott is right. the reaction to the pentium iii id is bogus. we already have ethernet addresses anyway. give up your silly notions of privacy. if you understand the power of freely copied software, then you should grok that databases will trade information about you and know you. at the same time, the right to be anonymous or to use an alias is fundamental. but so is the right to track someone else to discover their true name if you can.
__
__
a lot of people are afraid that without copyright someone else will get rich of their idea. but argument applies to that other person too: as soon as they start to make money from an idea, other people will notice and copy it themselves. the result is that everyone gets a little rich from it, and those closest to the creation of the idea get the richest from it since they have a head start.
__
__
i am out of academia. i believe copyright is wrong. you are quick to critisize, but there is no substance to your posts. copyright cannot be justified except as a subsidy. are you for that?
__
it's pathetic, but it's the natural result of intellectual property law. there is a better way: ipnot
__
copyright is the source of the next war on drugs.
information is free, the only question is, are you?
__
I can't think of anybody "just out of college" who works here. There are some right out of grad school, but most are veteran engineers. None were involved in "theoretical computer science".
__
i pisses me off to no end when i hear the MS apologists rant on about "government interference" when in fact MS entire business is based on copyright, which is massive government interference.
__