yet we hardly see anyone but patent trolls and megacorps doing anything with patents, so anything which weakens them is for the best.
That's because patents only make the news when you get sued. I take it that you are not an inventor. Much of the value of a startup technology company is contained in its patent portfolio, and that portfolio is what makes it attractive for purchase by larger companies.
If you're just a lone inventor and you have that good an idea, you're probably better off making a prototype and marketing the idea directly, anyhow, rather than getting patents.
There's no reason why you can't do both. In fact, if you don't do both, you're an idiot who is taking unnecessary risks on behalf of your investors.
The animals' rights movement is based on the idea that humans, having greater intelligence than all other species as well as the intangible quality we call "sentience", has a responsibilty for the welfare of the world, and its contents.
Many "animal rights" activists, such as those in PETA, demand that animals be treated in the same manner as humans, and that there is nothing special about humans. I think this is patently false, and you appear to agree.
Your point is well taken, but it does not follow that responsible management of the Earth's resources excludes killing animals for food.
The whole concept of animal rights is intellectually bankrupt, because there is no way we can get them to respect each other's rights, or even understand their own rights. The "animal rights" movement is all about animal management, and they are being dishonest (deliberately or otherwise) by characterizing it any other way.
On the other hand, it is possible in principle to program a robot to respect the rights of humans and other robots, so I would say this has more of a philosophical leg to stand on.
That way, in the event of a catastrophe or some kind of weird global event, it would be more likely that an uncorrupted copy could be found.
How do you plan to read it once you find it?
10 year disruption -- content formats have moved on; readers are scarce 100 year disruption -- hard drives, DVDs decay to unreadability 1000 year disruption -- even paper decays, unless specifically preserved >1000 year disruption -- even if it's chiseled into a stone tablet, the language might be extinct
I say, make it calculate the last digit of pi. Of course, that would only work if the PS3 had been taken over by an evil force that was feeding off the fear of the crew.
Take your jaded world weariness and shove it up your ass. The USA has problems, but comparing it to Iran with a smirk and a shrug is the opposite of helpful.
The life of my family is worth more to me than the thousand dollars?
The better question is, could you buy something else with that thousand dollars that would help your family even more? The EPIRB will help you out in a very narrow and extremely unlikely range of circumstances. Of course I don't know you, so for all I know you could be living in a shack in the rockies, in which case the EPIRB would be a good idea in case you lost your power and your phone and were in medical trouble. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't recommend it for the average day hiker.
I've been thinking very seriously about tossing one in my daypack.
Bear in mind that you might be held financially liable for a search if it goes off by accident (your kids playing with it, say). An average search, using aircraft and ground teams, costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. Not to mention the resources that could be taken away from a real emergency that could occur at the same time.
Being careful, and letting someone trustworthy know your plans and time of return, is good enough for all but the most hard core adventurers. It's all about the relative risk, and I don't see that an EPIRB would reduce risks enough to warrant the cost.
Newspapers have lost a lot of trust with readership because they have chosen to present the news that they want - rather than just reporting the facts.
This made me laugh. Have you ever read a political blog? They spend half their time shouting that the mainstream media is biased and ineffective, and the other half quoting MSM articles that happen to flatter their preconceptions.
The death of the mainstream media is hugely exaggerated. There is very little "news" that percolates from the blogosphere, compared to traditional, full-time, employed journalists.
I don't normally respond to AC's, but your post is so truly awesome that I just felt the need.
All real artists create for the cake of creation not Money.
The vast majority of influential artists create professionally. Are they doing it for money? Also, you're using the "true Scotsman" fallacy: "All true Scotsmen like porridge." "My daddy is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like porridge." "Then he's not a true Scotsman."
The illiad, beowulf, and many MANY other stories were written before copyright.
Once again. If you have to use the state of the world more than 1000 years ago to make an argument, then I win by default. And at no time did I say that art would not be produced without copyright.
Songwriters throughout time performed their music for money and other bards played others songs that others wrote.
What argument are you making here? This happens today. Copyright does not prevent it.
Shakespear's plays were dont in other troops weeks after he opened because "spies" were in the audience copying the dialogue the first few nights.
In your world:
There is no room for an author. There is only an author/producer. You have shrunk the market for art.
Everything has to be kept secret until it is performed. Information is not freely shared, which contradicts your earlier point.
People spell the names of famous artists incorrectly.
Yes, I agree I was being lazy, but so is everyone else in this thread.
Nobody asks the right questions about copyright. These arguments which revolve around "people will still make art" are mostly nonsense, because they ignore both the quantity, quality, and cultural significance of art. Of course people will still write and perform music even if they can't do it as their day job. But a lot of it might suck compared to contemporary music.
Again using a historical example, the better question is: how many artists currently recognized as "important" (from as far back as you care to look) were primarily engaged in a career other than music? The answer is almost none.
Which leads to a second question. In the absence of copyright, is it possible for a culturally significant number of musicians to make music their primary career?
The answer is that I don't know, and I'm not sure anybody else does, either. I don't consider singer/songwriter types in this equation. I like a lot of classical music, including contemporary classical... I know a lot of composers who barely eke out an existence as it is, who would lose a valuable source of revenue in the absence of copyright. These are culturally important people who can't charge for performances or sell T-shirts.
you are 100% correct. As we all know art, music, and literature did not exist before copyright laws. That is the world you believe you live in.... It's very different from reality where artists create in spite of copyright.
Get a better argument. DVD burners and the internet did not exist before copyright. Neither did the printing press, nor science as we know it today, for that matter.
In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons. Would you like to live in a world where all art is produced with the approval of these three groups?
if nobody is keeping any kind of regular hours, and you can't schedule a meeting, how can any sufficiently large group of people collaborate on anything? Maybe they use wikis or something else without the need for immediacy? (What would that do to the corporate culture?)
a Star Trek-like transporter is not part of our culture in the way music and other creative works are and as such you're not charging a fee to access culture
So what's your policy on charging admission at the museum?
Slashdot Mirror
yet we hardly see anyone but patent trolls and megacorps doing anything with patents, so anything which weakens them is for the best.
That's because patents only make the news when you get sued. I take it that you are not an inventor. Much of the value of a startup technology company is contained in its patent portfolio, and that portfolio is what makes it attractive for purchase by larger companies.
If you're just a lone inventor and you have that good an idea, you're probably better off making a prototype and marketing the idea directly, anyhow, rather than getting patents.
There's no reason why you can't do both. In fact, if you don't do both, you're an idiot who is taking unnecessary risks on behalf of your investors.
Many crowbars today are printed with the warning label: "Do not use to pry."
Does that mean we're only supposed to use them for their other intended purpose, to beat?
If an insane person kills another insane person, most people would agree that this is tragic and wrong.
If a fox kills a rabbit in the wild, most people would call that natural.
If animals are not expected to respect each others' rights, then they have no real rights to speak of.
The animals' rights movement is based on the idea that humans, having greater intelligence than all other species as well as the intangible quality we call "sentience", has a responsibilty for the welfare of the world, and its contents.
Many "animal rights" activists, such as those in PETA, demand that animals be treated in the same manner as humans, and that there is nothing special about humans. I think this is patently false, and you appear to agree.
Your point is well taken, but it does not follow that responsible management of the Earth's resources excludes killing animals for food.
The whole concept of animal rights is intellectually bankrupt, because there is no way we can get them to respect each other's rights, or even understand their own rights. The "animal rights" movement is all about animal management, and they are being dishonest (deliberately or otherwise) by characterizing it any other way.
On the other hand, it is possible in principle to program a robot to respect the rights of humans and other robots, so I would say this has more of a philosophical leg to stand on.
companies also have to keep their R&D far more secure under this system
So, no free exchange of information under this system? Is that better?
That way, in the event of a catastrophe or some kind of weird global event, it would be more likely that an uncorrupted copy could be found.
How do you plan to read it once you find it?
10 year disruption -- content formats have moved on; readers are scarce
100 year disruption -- hard drives, DVDs decay to unreadability
1000 year disruption -- even paper decays, unless specifically preserved
>1000 year disruption -- even if it's chiseled into a stone tablet, the language might be extinct
I say, make it calculate the last digit of pi. Of course, that would only work if the PS3 had been taken over by an evil force that was feeding off the fear of the crew.
Human Rights Watch Iran
Amnesty International Iran
Take your jaded world weariness and shove it up your ass. The USA has problems, but comparing it to Iran with a smirk and a shrug is the opposite of helpful.
But producers of information still need to get paid.
The life of my family is worth more to me than the thousand dollars?
The better question is, could you buy something else with that thousand dollars that would help your family even more? The EPIRB will help you out in a very narrow and extremely unlikely range of circumstances. Of course I don't know you, so for all I know you could be living in a shack in the rockies, in which case the EPIRB would be a good idea in case you lost your power and your phone and were in medical trouble. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't recommend it for the average day hiker.
I've been thinking very seriously about tossing one in my daypack.
Bear in mind that you might be held financially liable for a search if it goes off by accident (your kids playing with it, say). An average search, using aircraft and ground teams, costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. Not to mention the resources that could be taken away from a real emergency that could occur at the same time.
Being careful, and letting someone trustworthy know your plans and time of return, is good enough for all but the most hard core adventurers. It's all about the relative risk, and I don't see that an EPIRB would reduce risks enough to warrant the cost.
Newspapers have lost a lot of trust with readership because they have chosen to present the news that they want - rather than just reporting the facts.
This made me laugh. Have you ever read a political blog? They spend half their time shouting that the mainstream media is biased and ineffective, and the other half quoting MSM articles that happen to flatter their preconceptions.
The death of the mainstream media is hugely exaggerated. There is very little "news" that percolates from the blogosphere, compared to traditional, full-time, employed journalists.
All real artists create for the cake of creation not Money.
The vast majority of influential artists create professionally. Are they doing it for money? Also, you're using the "true Scotsman" fallacy: "All true Scotsmen like porridge." "My daddy is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like porridge." "Then he's not a true Scotsman."
The illiad, beowulf, and many MANY other stories were written before copyright.
Once again. If you have to use the state of the world more than 1000 years ago to make an argument, then I win by default. And at no time did I say that art would not be produced without copyright.
Songwriters throughout time performed their music for money and other bards played others songs that others wrote.
What argument are you making here? This happens today. Copyright does not prevent it.
Shakespear's plays were dont in other troops weeks after he opened because "spies" were in the audience copying the dialogue the first few nights.
In your world:
Ah, that was fun. I'm going back to work now.
Yes, I agree I was being lazy, but so is everyone else in this thread.
... I know a lot of composers who barely eke out an existence as it is, who would lose a valuable source of revenue in the absence of copyright. These are culturally important people who can't charge for performances or sell T-shirts.
Nobody asks the right questions about copyright. These arguments which revolve around "people will still make art" are mostly nonsense, because they ignore both the quantity, quality, and cultural significance of art. Of course people will still write and perform music even if they can't do it as their day job. But a lot of it might suck compared to contemporary music.
Again using a historical example, the better question is: how many artists currently recognized as "important" (from as far back as you care to look) were primarily engaged in a career other than music? The answer is almost none.
Which leads to a second question. In the absence of copyright, is it possible for a culturally significant number of musicians to make music their primary career?
The answer is that I don't know, and I'm not sure anybody else does, either. I don't consider singer/songwriter types in this equation. I like a lot of classical music, including contemporary classical
you are 100% correct. As we all know art, music, and literature did not exist before copyright laws. That is the world you believe you live in.... It's very different from reality where artists create in spite of copyright.
Get a better argument. DVD burners and the internet did not exist before copyright. Neither did the printing press, nor science as we know it today, for that matter.
In distant history, professional musicians were paid by the church, the government, or by wealthy patrons. Would you like to live in a world where all art is produced with the approval of these three groups?
Hooray for believing that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. It's like intellectual elitism for the lazy.
if nobody is keeping any kind of regular hours, and you can't schedule a meeting, how can any sufficiently large group of people collaborate on anything? Maybe they use wikis or something else without the need for immediacy? (What would that do to the corporate culture?)
Makes their lack of innovation all the more remarkable.
Really? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
a Star Trek-like transporter is not part of our culture in the way music and other creative works are and as such you're not charging a fee to access culture
So what's your policy on charging admission at the museum?
The whole system is automated isn't it?
That's right. The only paid employees of Verisign are there to arrange the money in a big pile for the executives' Monday morning money fights.
Here's his take on the Post's bemusement from a NetworkWorld blog:
... evolving language, etc.
"Bemuse" is a synonym for "confuse". It is not a synonym for "amuse".
Yes, yes
Steve Forbes for president? Or Ross Perot? Look how far those two smart, rich, successful businessmen went.
There is also a video (I'm too lazy to link it) in which he confesses that his main purpose in writing is to piss people off and drive traffic.
If true, that makes him a polemist, not a shill.
What is this, 2003? I'm looking forward to the latest press release from the the Iraqi information minister.