Everyone hates "security" until their plane gets hijacked. Then the passengers gangstomp the hijackers to death, after which they still hate "security."
I write software. Over the last 20 years, people have paid more than a million dollars for me to write software for them. If you could legally come along and copy my work verbatim, and sell it in the open marketplace in direct competition with my employers the day after they launch their product, they wouldn't have paid for me to produce the software in the first place. I am not unique.
Yes, without copyright, no one would ever pay anyone to write software for them.
Where do you think your employers got the money to pay you? Customers who wanted software, that's where.
There's no reason we should have to pay for the last thing instead of paying for the next thing. Most importantly, paying for the next thing is un-pirateable.
It's stupid to think that people won't get together to pay for improvements to existing systems, since they already do this. Most of the market isn't set up that way, though; most of the market is set up to put huge investments up front to create products, and then try to make that money back plus more, by selling something, that has no intrinsic value, at a high price. Just because that's how you're used to doing it that way doesn't mean that it makes sense to do it that way.
Everything that's screwed up about copyright enforcement stems from the problem of computers causing copies to be worthless. You need to decide whether you like copyright or computers more, because one of them isn't going to survive long-term in a form that you recognize.
If you want to think like this you have no natural right to anything.
You are totally, completely, factually wrong.
Copyright is a wholly artificial concept that literally did not have the possibility of existing prior to the invention of the Gutenberg Press. In fact, the press was around for a huge long while before someone came up with the idea of making sure that publishers, who, back then, actually had to do quite a bit of work to create copies, were able to pay writers to write things for them to print, without getting undercut by other printers.
People and property existed before the invention of the Gutenberg Press, and it has been recognized by just about every single one of them that being killed is bad, and having things stolen from them is bad.
It is a very, very recent construction that being able to magically conjure up an entire musical performance, as if you were there watching it, but in another time and place, but doing so without the explicit, discrete permission of the performers, is bad. To consider this to have anything to do with any kind of "natural right" is disingenuous at best and delusional at worst. Which are you?
The piracy riddle is not impossible, but the two sides of the argument have taken irreconcilable positions.
Unfortunately, one of them is irreconcilable with the reality of modern civilization.
There is one and only one solution to the "piracy riddle": break every computer. Computers are what make copies valueless; outside of computers, copies of works have an inherent, discrete value. Inside them, they don't. This is an unavoidable fact of what computers do, it's exactly what they were invented for, and if they can't do that then they aren't computers anymore. There's no way to "reconcile" a fact.
So it's easy: destroy them all, problem solved.
Or.
Maybe:
Change your business model, so that "piracy" doesn't affect your income. Change the laws, so they no longer grant temporary monopoly rights to sell something that is now worthless, but instead grant some form of incentive that's actually compatible with modern technology.
Maybe try that. Then we can talk about "reconciliation."
Glad i am out of public schools, but then again college is not all the great either, i am still doing English, Math, History, Science and nothing i want to learn. What about all the stuff about college i was promised? Learn what i want to learn, work on projects the broaden my knowledge
You get to do that stuff after they re-teach you all the remedial crap that public schools failed to teach you correctly.
"Carrying a gun is an individual decision" No it is not. It is a social decision. If you are able to defend yourself and those nearby, but unwilling to do so by carrying a firearm, then you are risking society.
All they have done is stated that code is non-corporeal. They haven't said stealing it isn't a crime...
Who gives a shit if it's still a crime, do you realize what this means?!
Now whenever someone says "copyright infringment is theft", instead of spending dozens of paragraphs pointing out the gigantic unpatchable holes in their spurious-ass inevitable failure of an argument, we can now just say, "Goldman-Sachs v. Aleynikov, your argument is invalid. STFU forever."
Then send a message by just collapsing the corresponding bits.
The bits don't collapse until they're measured, which destroys the entanglement. You can't watch the bits to see if they collapse on their own, because you can't observe them at all without destructively measuring them. All you know for sure is that when someone else measures their entangled bits, they'll get the same pattern you did when you measured yours.
You can use it to send a message and know that the first person to read it will be the only person that will be able to read it.
Note that despite the fact that classical information can be duplicated at will,
Noisily, expensively, and most importantly, uniquely; that is to say, when you copy a physical document, the new copy is, in fact, a completely different and separate thing than every other copy, that just happens to contain patterns that can be interpreted as information.
On a computer network, that interprable pattern, all by itself, can be copied, transmitted, and manipulated, without ever permanently committing any given copy of that pattern to any particular physical object. The most important thing about this, the really new thing, is that when this happens, every copy of that pattern is absolutely indistinguishable, down to the smallest indivisible portion, from every other copy of of that pattern, unless you change it on purpose.
You can take a book and figure out where it came from. Where it was bought, where the store got it, where the printer got the paper from. You can look at a specific blank area on page 57 with a microscope, record the pattern of the paper fibers, and know immediately by the same test if any given copy you get your hands on is the same copy or a different copy. You can take a master recording and make two pristine copies directly from it, and if you play them side by side into an oscilloscope, you will be able to discern differences in the patterns. Moreover, you can write your signature on one of the tape reels, and the two copies are now physically distinct even without changing the patterns stored on them.
If you make a bit-for-bit copy of a computer file, you end up with two files that are absolutely indistinguishable. There are no minute differences that you can look at to distinguish them, that aren't entirely circumstantial and ephemeral. There is no microscope that can see smaller than bits. There is no way to look at a bit and say "aha! This bit came from that computer!", because in a very real sense, each bit "came from" whatever piece of equipment you're observing it on.
the typical internet packet still is transported from one sender to one receiver.
No, it isn't. We use the term "transport" sometimes, as a helpful abstraction, but nothing actually leaves one place and goes to another; equipment on either end of a wire changes the electrical state of the wire so that information is transmitted from one end to the other. In the end, that pattern remains at both ends until it is destroyed. Ultimately, and unavoidably, the typical internet packet is, in fact, copied from one sender to one receiver.
Shall I conclude that the internet is not a network?
You shan't.
And what about the water supply network? Last I checked, you could not send the same drop of water to different houses.
You are correct. Matter and information are NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. Congratulations, you have awoken from the Matrix. That IS air you're breathing now. Welcome to the desert of the real, enjoy your stay.
... is the same problem pretty much every study has -- it's based on the concept of ceteris paribus, which does not exist in reality.
...unless you're trying to create artificial intelligences. Knowing the minimum number of generations it might take for a particular method to produce emergent increases in general intelligence would seem to be handy information in that case.
Yes, their paper is a tautology. Shorter paper: "We created a simulation of our rules. Then the simulation proved our rules."
Incorrect. They stipulated that brains that most successfully played the games were more likely to survive. They placed no artifical constraints on "smarter" (whatever that means). If neural networks becoming simpler over 50,000 generations of (getting better at co-operating)+(random mutations) were probable, it probably would have happened in the simulation. In fact, it might have, if any of the games had included the possibilty of self-sacrifice in addition to co-operate or not-co-operate.
Intelligent Design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design . The very undirected process a hypothetical Deist god would set in motion (evolution) is specifically what Intelligent Design claims does not work.
That's kind of like saying if you change things on a network later to make it work the way you want, that you didn't design it in the first place.
If Deism doesn't include the possibility of a fallible God that never changes his mind about things, that doesn't mean that ID doesn't. Yes, that may very well make ID incompatible with any number of religions, a controversy which I wholeheartedly endorse be taught in Tennessee schools.
OJ Simpson surrendered to police and was arrested and taken to jail roughly an hour after the gigantic super-famous televised low-speed car chase you've apparently never heard of. He negotiated the extra time with the police as a condition of his peaceable surrender.
Fame is a powerful thing -- it made the police treat him like any other rich celebrity wanted for murder, despite the color of his skin.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't have to work so hard if you weren't covering for that guy who spends all his time rooting through people's bags.
Everyone hates "security" until their plane gets hijacked. Then the passengers gangstomp the hijackers to death, after which they still hate "security."
FTFY.
Yes, he wrote down the entire performance.
I write software. Over the last 20 years, people have paid more than a million dollars for me to write software for them. If you could legally come along and copy my work verbatim, and sell it in the open marketplace in direct competition with my employers the day after they launch their product, they wouldn't have paid for me to produce the software in the first place. I am not unique.
Yes, without copyright, no one would ever pay anyone to write software for them.
Where do you think your employers got the money to pay you? Customers who wanted software, that's where.
There's no reason we should have to pay for the last thing instead of paying for the next thing. Most importantly, paying for the next thing is un-pirateable.
It's stupid to think that people won't get together to pay for improvements to existing systems, since they already do this. Most of the market isn't set up that way, though; most of the market is set up to put huge investments up front to create products, and then try to make that money back plus more, by selling something, that has no intrinsic value, at a high price. Just because that's how you're used to doing it that way doesn't mean that it makes sense to do it that way.
Everything that's screwed up about copyright enforcement stems from the problem of computers causing copies to be worthless. You need to decide whether you like copyright or computers more, because one of them isn't going to survive long-term in a form that you recognize.
Prince of Persia
Source Code ... but I can't quite put my finger on it.
If you want to think like this you have no natural right to anything.
You are totally, completely, factually wrong.
Copyright is a wholly artificial concept that literally did not have the possibility of existing prior to the invention of the Gutenberg Press. In fact, the press was around for a huge long while before someone came up with the idea of making sure that publishers, who, back then, actually had to do quite a bit of work to create copies, were able to pay writers to write things for them to print, without getting undercut by other printers.
People and property existed before the invention of the Gutenberg Press, and it has been recognized by just about every single one of them that being killed is bad, and having things stolen from them is bad.
It is a very, very recent construction that being able to magically conjure up an entire musical performance, as if you were there watching it, but in another time and place, but doing so without the explicit, discrete permission of the performers, is bad. To consider this to have anything to do with any kind of "natural right" is disingenuous at best and delusional at worst. Which are you?
The piracy riddle is not impossible, but the two sides of the argument have taken irreconcilable positions.
Unfortunately, one of them is irreconcilable with the reality of modern civilization.
There is one and only one solution to the "piracy riddle": break every computer. Computers are what make copies valueless; outside of computers, copies of works have an inherent, discrete value. Inside them, they don't. This is an unavoidable fact of what computers do, it's exactly what they were invented for, and if they can't do that then they aren't computers anymore. There's no way to "reconcile" a fact.
So it's easy: destroy them all, problem solved.
Or.
Maybe:
Change your business model, so that "piracy" doesn't affect your income. Change the laws, so they no longer grant temporary monopoly rights to sell something that is now worthless, but instead grant some form of incentive that's actually compatible with modern technology.
Maybe try that. Then we can talk about "reconciliation."
Glad i am out of public schools, but then again college is not all the great either, i am still doing English, Math, History, Science and nothing i want to learn. What about all the stuff about college i was promised? Learn what i want to learn, work on projects the broaden my knowledge
You get to do that stuff after they re-teach you all the remedial crap that public schools failed to teach you correctly.
...for meatspace.
Wow.
They REALLY don't know what they're doing.
Gasoline? WTF?
No golden age lasts forever.
"Carrying a gun is an individual decision"
No it is not. It is a social decision. If you are able to defend yourself and those nearby, but unwilling to do so by carrying a firearm, then you are risking society.
Yes, and...?
All they have done is stated that code is non-corporeal. They haven't said stealing it isn't a crime...
Who gives a shit if it's still a crime, do you realize what this means?!
Now whenever someone says "copyright infringment is theft", instead of spending dozens of paragraphs pointing out the gigantic unpatchable holes in their spurious-ass inevitable failure of an argument, we can now just say, "Goldman-Sachs v. Aleynikov, your argument is invalid. STFU forever."
This will save SO much time in the future.
looks like plaintiff lawyers screwed up
Yeah, by bringing the case in the first place. Nowhere in physical reality nor law is information directly equivalent to property.
Then send a message by just collapsing the corresponding bits.
The bits don't collapse until they're measured, which destroys the entanglement. You can't watch the bits to see if they collapse on their own, because you can't observe them at all without destructively measuring them. All you know for sure is that when someone else measures their entangled bits, they'll get the same pattern you did when you measured yours.
You can use it to send a message and know that the first person to read it will be the only person that will be able to read it.
Since when does "network" imply "sharing"?
Since computers?
Note that despite the fact that classical information can be duplicated at will,
Noisily, expensively, and most importantly, uniquely; that is to say, when you copy a physical document, the new copy is, in fact, a completely different and separate thing than every other copy, that just happens to contain patterns that can be interpreted as information.
On a computer network, that interprable pattern, all by itself, can be copied, transmitted, and manipulated, without ever permanently committing any given copy of that pattern to any particular physical object. The most important thing about this, the really new thing, is that when this happens, every copy of that pattern is absolutely indistinguishable, down to the smallest indivisible portion, from every other copy of of that pattern, unless you change it on purpose.
You can take a book and figure out where it came from. Where it was bought, where the store got it, where the printer got the paper from. You can look at a specific blank area on page 57 with a microscope, record the pattern of the paper fibers, and know immediately by the same test if any given copy you get your hands on is the same copy or a different copy. You can take a master recording and make two pristine copies directly from it, and if you play them side by side into an oscilloscope, you will be able to discern differences in the patterns. Moreover, you can write your signature on one of the tape reels, and the two copies are now physically distinct even without changing the patterns stored on them.
If you make a bit-for-bit copy of a computer file, you end up with two files that are absolutely indistinguishable. There are no minute differences that you can look at to distinguish them, that aren't entirely circumstantial and ephemeral. There is no microscope that can see smaller than bits. There is no way to look at a bit and say "aha! This bit came from that computer!", because in a very real sense, each bit "came from" whatever piece of equipment you're observing it on.
the typical internet packet still is transported from one sender to one receiver.
No, it isn't. We use the term "transport" sometimes, as a helpful abstraction, but nothing actually leaves one place and goes to another; equipment on either end of a wire changes the electrical state of the wire so that information is transmitted from one end to the other. In the end, that pattern remains at both ends until it is destroyed. Ultimately, and unavoidably, the typical internet packet is, in fact, copied from one sender to one receiver.
Shall I conclude that the internet is not a network?
You shan't.
And what about the water supply network? Last I checked, you could not send the same drop of water to different houses.
You are correct. Matter and information are NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. Congratulations, you have awoken from the Matrix. That IS air you're breathing now. Welcome to the desert of the real, enjoy your stay.
like this?
A better candidate would be the fire department. Get them off the lazy boys, out of the station and doing some work.
Yeah, it's not like they have to be ready to put out fires or anything.
... is the same problem pretty much every study has -- it's based on the concept of ceteris paribus, which does not exist in reality.
...unless you're trying to create artificial intelligences. Knowing the minimum number of generations it might take for a particular method to produce emergent increases in general intelligence would seem to be handy information in that case.
Yes, their paper is a tautology. Shorter paper: "We created a simulation of our rules. Then the simulation proved our rules."
Incorrect. They stipulated that brains that most successfully played the games were more likely to survive. They placed no artifical constraints on "smarter" (whatever that means). If neural networks becoming simpler over 50,000 generations of (getting better at co-operating)+(random mutations) were probable, it probably would have happened in the simulation. In fact, it might have, if any of the games had included the possibilty of self-sacrifice in addition to co-operate or not-co-operate.
Intelligent Design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design . The very undirected process a hypothetical Deist god would set in motion (evolution) is specifically what Intelligent Design claims does not work.
That's kind of like saying if you change things on a network later to make it work the way you want, that you didn't design it in the first place.
If Deism doesn't include the possibility of a fallible God that never changes his mind about things, that doesn't mean that ID doesn't. Yes, that may very well make ID incompatible with any number of religions, a controversy which I wholeheartedly endorse be taught in Tennessee schools.
I was so looking forward to forcefully citizen's-arresting the next HR asshole to demand my Facebook login.
Totalitarianism is a politically loaded synonym for "Unity". Unity is what democracy is supposed to create.
No, compromise is what a democracy is supposed to create. If you have unity, you don't need democracy.
OJ Simpson surrendered to police and was arrested and taken to jail roughly an hour after the gigantic super-famous televised low-speed car chase you've apparently never heard of. He negotiated the extra time with the police as a condition of his peaceable surrender.
Fame is a powerful thing -- it made the police treat him like any other rich celebrity wanted for murder, despite the color of his skin.