In sixth grade we were taught that to be "scientific" meant to have an hypothesis, and then remain completely unbiased while you collect data. Thus proving or disproving your theory. Then other scientists were supposed to pour over your findings for a few years, in order to ensure whether there were any flaws in your data.
Now, there are TONS of instances where this didn't work (so don't waste our time replying with examples please), and it's TIME CONSUMING. But, for the most part it works well.
The problem I have with the global warming theory, is that it's data is restricted to the last hundred years or so. Meteorology is a NEW SCIENCE. Hell, they can't even predict TOMORROW'S weather, how accurate can they be about stuff that happened 100 years ago?
So, granted that there's alot of evidence that could conceivably point to human's destruction of our global weather patterns.... however, THERE IS NO CONTROL GROUP TO COMPARE THIS TO! How do we know what the earth's normal weather cycles are in THE LONG TERM?!
We only just got to the North Pole in the 1950s. How do we know it was even there in the 1850s?
It's seems to me that one day, Amazon said to it's collective self, "Why Not? It couldn't hurt to try." And filed patent applications for everything internet related.
The patent office followed the established rules and granted them patents. They have a system established that works the way it works. None of that surprises me. What surprises me is that it was all pretty much uncontested. Any arguments to the patents were never brought out in the media, so it at least has the APPEARANCE of being uncontested.
What also surprises me is that Slashdot continually posts these lame Jon Katz articles, when personally I would try to get an interview with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, a Deputy Commissioner, or even one of the two Assistant Commissioners. Boy, wouldn't that be informative and useful....
This is a continuing conversation for me. There was a reply I typed up a couple of days ago in the Sega Shutting Down Hundreds of ROM sites article that best sums it up.
Your perceptions need adjustment, for what you find "obvious" is completely inaccurate. I have been reading for over two years now. I have been responding too, but no one listens.
I remember the patents to which you refer, and yes the patent office gave them patents. But that was because they weren't contested by anyone. You should read section 135 of Title 35 (Interferences). It speaks of the appeal board. "Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability." Meaning you boneheads could have gotten together and appealed the patent on the grounds previously mentioned.
But you were too busy patting yourselves on the backs for being so "intellectually superior." Let me ask, of all the people who read Slashdot, have any of you actually written to the Patent Office to complain? (And I have a couple of patents, and busted my ass to get them... so I can tell you how difficult it is to obtain one of these puppies.)
The problem here is that you all just whine, but don't do anything. The patent office probably received the applications, couldn't find anything in the library to contest Amazon's (and you ever so cleverly worded "Some obscure company's") claims... and accepted the damn things. If you were so APPALLED, you should have immediately collected your evidence on why the patents were non-justified, and sent your findings to the Patent Office.
It's not the patent office's fault that you all are lazy. But if you want to stop them, you'll have to be MUCH better informed than you are.
"Sec. 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made."
If you all would stop whining, and put together a letter to the patent office detailing why this is obvious to us (since we ARE in the trade), you might be surprised that they pull the damn thing!
You obviously don't know anything about patent law. You're taking the last two or three years of software patents as your basis, and those patents won't hold up. The problem with those patents is that they're being given without any understanding by the patent office of the technology itself. As time goes by that will change. In the meantime, those patents that have been awarded will never stand up in court, where patent law inevitably functions.
Patent law has may more hurdels to jump through than does copyright law. I know, I have several. There is no way 99% of ANY programs would ever get a patent because they are not new ideas. Plus, most fall under the common sense clauses.
Copyright law is to protect publishers from other publishers. It has nothing to do with protecting artists. It's a limitation to free speech and should be used sparingly in assigning to a publisher it's PUBLICATION rights. But the artist has no control of his works. Once released he has no right to them. At least thats the way it's supposed to work. But people have this moronic idea that their ideas are theirs and they OWN them.
So copyright law has been twisted to this view.
But I'll bet you it will take only one case to get to the supreme court, and all of this stuff goes away as unconstitutional.
As to your book of recipes, the recipes themselves are not copyrightable. You'll find tons of them published in Sunday newspapers across the country. The collection itself is though.
actually I would never try to LICENSE any software to begin with...
You're asking the wrong guy that type of question. I don't try to make a living selling software packages on shelves to people who don't know where the on/off switch is. I get hired to write programs.
Which means, I go in, get the functional description, do my job for a month or two, get paid for my time... and then I go on to the next job. Plus, there will always be a next job, since technology is slipping out of our hands more and more each day. I have no fear that I will always find work.
So my question to you is: "Why do you feel so insecure as to insist that your services require a compensetory model completely different from any other service industry?"
Why doesn't the waitress charge by calorie... and then roaylties in inderect proportion to your excrement? Why doesn't a lawyer charge your family for every year you live as a free man AFTER you are acquited of murder? Why doesn't your auto mechanic charge you for every piston stroke plus a surcharge by gallons of gas your car consumes? These are as crazy ideas as your so called "proprietary" products.
Why do lawyers lose their licenses for charging two different clients for the same hour? That's called "double billing," and is illegal in service industries. However, you feel entitled to charge THOUSANDS of times for the same hour's work... and feel that it's stealing if you DON'T.
My point before is that under United States Constitutional Law... intellectual property CAN NOT exist legally. There ISN'T such a thing. No one owns ideas. It's a crock made up by people who know that their product, left to natural economic forces, won't make money without MAJOR government protection.
It's corporate welfare.
So let's say I write a piece of software... which I do every day. The deal is I don't make my living off of the code. I make my living off of the service. The "licenses" that Sega has written giving certain people the RIGHT to use their software are VAPOR! We haven't ever pushed the fact because it wasn't hurting anybody. We felt that as long as they made a good product, who were we to take on huge corporations on technicalities that didn't really affect us. Plus, who's going to waste the money to fight something in court that was completely HYPOTHETICAL... more of a legal argument to be argued by grad students in mock trials.
But now, thanks to the "dot coms," everybody wants to make money off of US, the techies and geeks. They want to apply the old rules to our new economy. They want to take what is in our heads and put it in neat pakages and sell it for a tidy profit.
This isn't about ego... if you wrote good code, I'll give you huge amounts of credit. This isn't about my programs keeping food in my mouth... I'm in a service industry, I don't make anything that I want to be sold as a product. It's about corporations claiming the rights to our most basic of freedoms.
I think that the patent applications that I referred to happened even before that though. It should prove interesting to the debate to get the facts though...
I'll go browsing and see what I can find.
I do remember stories of Bill Gates in the early eighties saying that the software industry required intellectual property laws, or the industry would never get off the ground. And I think that those comments were made after various failed attempts at patent applications.
They may be part of our society, but they aren't legal. Not in the United States anyway.
It's a tough concept to wrap your mind around, especially if you grew up with shrink wrap licensing being the norm, but Freedom of Speech protects freedom of thought. Freedom of the Press doesn't mean of the media. Hell, the media didn't even exist when the constitution was written. It meant that you can transmit any thought or idea via the most highly tecnological advances of the time... the printing press.
Which means that no one has a RIGHT to any idea. The government CAN NOT regulate it. Period.
Now if a company wants to go into a binding CONTRACT with you, then you may (under special circumstances), give up those rights voluntarily. But both sides would have to agree to that. I don't believe that shrink wrap licensing can possibly hold the same weight as a notorized, signed and witnessed contract. Plus contract law itself is controversial. There are millions of people who would even disagree with the idea that you can voluntarily give up your rights under ANY circumstances.
You base your argument on the idea that thoughts belong to someone. That you can actually come up with an original idea that no one else has ever thought up before. That you should be paid for being such a genius. That any idea used twice is stealing.
Yes, people have put a lot of time and effort into programs. No one doubts that. But as a programmer I can tell you, all of my programs have code taken from somewhere else. Every line that they teach in college was written by somone else before I got there. Where should the line between information and product be drawn? And who is to determine it?
My suggestion simply is that if programs are ideas, (since that is copyright laws' jurisdiction) then you can not own them. And if they are tools, then they should be ONLY covered by patent law... and all the limitations to which patent law restricts these ideas. Thus after 17 years (or 19...I can't remember) these programs would become public domain. And any code found to be of common sense could never, EVER be patented in the first place.
So if you can make a program that moves the world forward by THOUSANDS of years of evolution, then apply for a patent. The government should give you a limited monopoly for a third of your life to benifit from the gifts you've given to mankind.
But if your program is obsolete in five years, then how beneficial was it to humanity in the first place. Why do you feel that you should be given a monopoly when our constituion specifically states that we have a right to those ideas. And how can I possibly STEAL something to which you had no right in the first place?!
What distresses me is how quickly people are willing to give up their rights for money. How quick you were to judge this as STEALING. Like it was something physical. Like I was breaking into someone's house and raping his daughter. It's a fricking program!
Programming is a service industry. It is not a PRODUCT industry. You don't make X amount of dollars on every widget you sell... you get paid X amount of dollars on every hour you sit there at the console... doing your job. The old timers remember those days... before Microsoft. Before programming was warped into a money making machine for the technology stunted.
Stop giving them the edge. Wake up. You're not stealing anything. They're programs. Like every other scientific advancement, we're SUPPOSED to be building new programs on the foundations of the OLD ONES! That's all. They are ideas expressed in ones and zeros. They only have value if WE GIVE THEM VALUE. Stop feeding the marketing types.
Slashdot should do a story on "intellectual property." There is no such thing. Copyright law applied to published books and written works. It was protection between publishing companies. The author sold his rights to the publishing company via CONTRACT. If no contract was signed, it was typically the author's right to go write for someone else. The company with the copyright never owned anything tangible, just protection from the U.S. government from other publishing firms.
Patent law dealt with inventions and manufacturing. (i.e. tools) The U.S. government would grant protection FOR A LIMITED TIME for any invention granted that it:
1. Wasn't of common sense. Meaning no one in that particular field wouldn't have made the logical leap themselves.
2. They had to show that they would put it to good use... that they weren't just sitting on it.
Both of these ideas have been completely warped. Everyone now thinks that they have the right to "get rich quick" with one idea. Like if I put a year into this program, my great-great grand children should be able to live off of the royalties.
I propose that the government simply remove it's protection from copyrights dealing with computer programs. They should have fallen under the patent law to begin with. In fact it is my understanding the the computer companies originally had attempted to file for patents for software, AND WERE DENIED. So they obtained copyrights instead... which I would view as unconstituional.
Let them make all the contracts they wish, with both author's and consumers... but the government should have no authority to offer it's protection in obviously CIVIL cases like this. And the judicial branch should review the latest bunch of intellectual property laws coming out of the legislative branch... and declare them unconstitutional before it's too late.
This was what I was talking about in the "Emus And Do-It-Yourself Arcade Construction" article reply just two days ago. (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/04/12412 17&mode=thread)
You can talk about open sourcing and free software all you want, but in the end it's the courts that will decide how the internet and new technology will be shaped. And typically this is decided by the side with the most expensive lawyers.
Huh... and the emu article was only two days ago...
You missed the point. It isn't about one company coming back for their rights to their 20 year old ROMs. It's about the HOARDES of people that are scanning slashdot and other geek pages for ideas from which to profit.
The "dot coms" are volitile not because they're new technology, or the next best thing... it's more about morons with no understanding of OUR world that are trying to get rich quick.
So again, the more you beat a dead horse... the more someone wants to make money off of it. We all knew about emulators, so why post a story about them? Is Slashdot going mainstream? Are they trying to provide stories for the masses?
We didn't need... nor did we enjoy this story. The only thing it accomplishes is that someone may have got it into their heads to buy the "rights" for these roms... someone who wants to make a profit... someone who is WILLING to fight tooth and nail for them. Some NEW PLAYER with teeth.
It's not the past we have to worry about... it's the hoardes of fresh morons that scare me.
How wise is it to post these kinds of stories? I really wish that Slashdot wouldn't.
Let's go over what we've learned, shall we? Nobody gave a crap about Napster, until it became public knowledge what Napster really was. Then 'lo and behold....... Everybody and their mother are downloading from Napster. RIAA now has enough evidence to gain an injunction (albeit temporary).
I enjoy emulators. These ancient games are why I became interested in computers to begin with. We all did. We wanted to program these games for ourselves... this was before Nintendo. So checking out the ROMs and source on these babies is a wet dream for me.
But, thanks to idiots and their concepts of intellectual properties (which is unconstitutional unless a patent is involved... don't believe me? Read the constitution) want money for doing nothing. And some marketing major is going to read these articles and say, "wow, what a good idea... we can charge for this. I'll take these articles to my boss and show him that there's a market for this stuff." We always get things taken away because we aren't smart enough TO KEEP OUR MOUTHS SHUT!
I guarantee you some MBA from Namco is going to file suit against MAME in the next few weeks.
Rule #1: If someone is having a good time, there's money to be made.
Rule #2: Anyone can make money, it takes a wise person to spend (and acquire) it well.
Therefore, any good time will be inevitably ruined by some greedy moron trying to make money. The only thing that protects us is that they're not involved in our world. They don't even know that emulators exist. So please, stop informing them!
I thought about that response, and since it's a geek's primary responisbility to educate others (thus boosting his/her own self image), I didn't like my answer...
The 8080 used 8 bit words. The 8088 used 8 bit external bus and internally was 16 bit. Thus any interface it had with other hardware was 8 bit.
A lot of PLC equipment is still based on this standard. Thus the hardware (Input/Ouput cards) communicate with the main processor on an 8 bit backplane.
8 bits give you a maximum integer value of 255. Therefore a year like 1987 won't fit. The best you can do is save the last two digits (ie. 87).
The only fix to this problem was changing the hardware... no software fix available.
Make Sense?
(I guess I didn't want you to do the math after all.)
Production is based on time sychronization. You need to produce so many of an item at such an such a time. The union workers have their bonuses based on these quotas, therefore all of our production data systems are time synched. Then there's shelf-life of products, and appropriate labelling systems to go with that...etc, etc.
When you program these systems, you have one integer word reserved for the last two digits of the year. All of the programming on top of that is based on this one integer word.
You do the math.
PS. Some of the systems didn't even get to that step. Their hardware literally locked up at 00:00 01/00
I'm kind of offended at the tons of posts saying: "NOTHING HAPPENED!!! See, I told you so."
I'm sure all the IT and CompSCI people out there weren't really worried about any Y2K stuff... but we control systems engineers (level 1 production types) were terrified of it.
Anxious as we were, we tried to get management to fund an inspection of all systems... and since management is usually made up of non-geek types, there was no way to squeeze a penny out of them for what they felt was unneeded computer work.
BUT, thank God for all of the Y2K hype!!! If management hadn't seen Dan Rather explaining (in small terms) what the possibilities for Y2K were, we wouldn't have received time and funding to inspect our systems.
So after 7 or 8 of my clients found 85% of their systems to NOT function after a clock change to Y2K, we spent MILLIONS of dollars this year to fix them PRIOR to the actual event. These weren't Intel based processors mind you... these were Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and older Distributed Control Systems (DCSs), some even based on Z80 and 8080 technology. The industrial/manufacturing world is still decades behind in it's control systems... so while you guys are lounging in your linux alphas... we're still doing machine code.
I guess what I'm saying is Y2K was VERY REAL for us... and you can thank the thousands of engineers, technicians and programmers who fixed the problems BEFORE THEY HAPPENED for a very quiet new year's eve.
First off... this is a perfect example of why I think Slashdot needs to be retrofitted... HEAVILY: All of the comments moderated as INFORMATIVE were completely stereotypical and misleading.
I live in Pittsburgh. I know Pittsburgh. You sir are no Pittsburgher!
First off, Pittsburgh isn't dying. You'd have to have your head in the sand to not see all of the money pouring through this city. New stadiums, new airport, new convention center, tons and tons of new businesses... not to mention Cranberry Township (which was the fastest growing area in the country a year or two ago.)
Secondly, there are no more steel mills! The old politicians were voted out four years ago. Allegheny county is now run by REPUBLICANS!!! (I'm not sure that's an improvement, but it is definitely a change!)
Thridly, Pittsburgh is fast becoming a new corridor. Demographics show a new area cropping up with an increase in commerce between here and Cleveland. Mark my words, in 10 years this area will be referred to as Cleveburgh. (It's a safe bet, I heard the term used in an economic discussion on NPR already.)
And what's all this crap about NO TECHNOLOGY here? Pittsburgh had the HIGHEST ISP PROVIDERS PER PERSON in the country! No kidding! Everyone points to silicon valley for technology advances, and that's fine... but there are tons of advances in technology that happen in hidden corners everywhere. In fact the first television station in the country was here. What's to say that the first 3D O/S won't be invented here also? Take FORE systems for example: it is my understanding that the company was founded by a couple of CMU professors. Billionares now I'm sure.
Add to all this the Biomedical Engineering school that Pitt added a few years ago. Then there's the high tech council here... the Birmingham Maglev at the airport (soon to be cloned by the maglev downtown). Some of the best hospitals in the world (including Children's). Watch some Discovery channel or The Learning Channel sometimes. There are tons of technological stories coming out of this town.
Every company here is growing, new control systems in the industry fields... new equipment in the medical field... you name any aspect of this city, and it's completely UNLIKE a steel town.
I'm a very successful control systems engineer. This is a wonderful city for working. For the last six years, I have never wanted for work. Of course I could move to another "hipper" town to make more money... but the cost of living would also increase. Reality is, I live in a house that cost me less than $100k and if it was in NJ would sell for $250k. It's in a safe and quiet neghborhood, 20 minutes from a brand spanking new international airport. Cheap, clean happy living. If I want to go to the beach, I can drive the 4-5 hours and spend the weekend. (Personally, I think beaches are dirty and littered nowadays.)
I was born in California, and I hated it. The weather was gorgeous, but the people there suck. I need more out of life than crowds of flakes, space cadets and rude self-centered vain people. (Yes I'm stereotyping... ironic isn't it?)
To each his (/her) own. But, for those of you that are capable and thrive in an environment where you don't need other people (those of you that think of yourselves as Grizzly Adams types) would love it here.
(On a final note: the decrease in population is not solely a Pittsburgh phenomenon. This is happening everywhere on the east coast. NY state was hit hardest! Philly was hit worse than Pittsburgh)
Living in Pittsburgh, I'm glad there are so many people that can't find any reason to live here. It's a city with a very small town feel to it... and we like it that way. Usually we walk around with a "wink wink nudge nudge" kind of attitude about living here. You can always tell an out of towner... No traffic, almost no crime. Plenty of things to do... if you're an insider... otherwise, you're left out in the cold. Most of the people that don't like it here are from New Jersey or New York. Thank God they don't stay. Being born in California (Ventura), and travelling around the country my entire life, I can say that the best thing about Pittsburgh is the "fend for yourself" attitude. Lots and lots of freedom. If you're a cattle minded person, you're out of luck here. Lots of forest, rivers, wildlife... plus the city can keep you up busy if you play it right. By the way, Pittsburgh has over a million people living here. Most census numbers don't take just the city limit population... since NO ONE LIVES DOWNTOWN!!! Only an out of towner moron wouldn't know that.
hmmm...posted this twice, nothing happened. shucks:
Not like anyone's going to read this, but....
You can tell that anyone who finds this well-spoken article to be offensive was never a 14-year-old boy. It's so easy to knee-jerk and say "HE'S SO SEXIST!" Of course that instantly reveals you as someone who is completely in the dark about being male. I have never found any tenet of feminism or political correctness that takes into consideration the turmoil your body goes through when you first become a teenager. If you weren't there, then you have no idea. Like a kick in the crotch, the pain can not be described to a woman... you either know or you don't. So a man's "journey" through mating begins with confusion and only gets worse with age. It's unfortunate that men need to see things in sexual context FIRST, but they do. Most likely because it began that way with puberty.
But, not to come across too heavy, let me tell you what I know about women: 1. From the onset of puberty to about 13 - Women don't want you, they want some poster boy. Shaun Cassidy, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, Back Street Boys, etc.... 2. From 13 to 16 - they don't want you, they want older guys. Why would they date someone in their grade when there's tons of boys that can increase their popularity status? 3. From 16 to 18 - they don't want you, they want boys from other schools. How many times did I hear "I'm so sick of boys from our school... they're so immature!" 4. From 18 to 19 - they want you, but they want everybody... so what difference does it make? All college women go through that "How pretty am I" stage, where they get drunk and flop on their backs for just about anybody. (Well, maybe not ALL WOMEN... but enough that everyone reading this is laughing right now.) 5. From 19 to 21 - they don't want you, they don't want anybody. Now they often want time to themselves, and are very careful about whom they date. Which usually means joining an invisible convent.
I think that this is where our hero (Uncle Robin) picks up. You've gone through your entire life watching women making the absolute biggest fools of themselves, but yet you still are stupid enough to want "in." What do you do?
You both have decent points and good logic skills. But you are too quick to throw away the idea that offending speech IS an affront to freedom.
If my purpose is to go through life completely alone and untouched, I should have a right to do that. Just because you have this NEED to express your views, why would you accost me when I don't care, (of course this whole discussion then would be a bit ironic.)
Let's pick a word... oh I know: NIGGER
That word isn't an offense? That's not a slap in the face to someone? Is it simply their problem for being offended? Why isn't it some of my responsibility for using the word KNOWING that it will offend them?
The reason that we have had this argument for 200 years is that there IS a limitation to what can be inflicted on someone. If you claim that it's all in my head for being offended (i.e. my inference), then why can't I claim that you're are verbally abusing me (i.e. your implication)... A mother DOES NOT have the right to verbally degrade her child as a LOSER its entire life. A principle does NOT have the right to call a student "a no good stupid SPIC." A cop does NOT have the right to tell a person to "suck me, and I won't give you the ticket." Charles Manson does not have the right to say, "ya know, it would be really cool if you all would go kill an entire family for me." If the right to free speech is so pure, then are you saying that there should be no anti-conspiracy laws, anti-racism laws, anti-treason laws, military "top secret" clearances, public school curriculums, acceptable public servant behavior, acceptable work place behavior, liability law suits, media accountability, governmental responsibility to the truth?... blah blah blah
You all know the clichés. "You can't yell fire in a public building." "Children need to be protected from certain evil elements." Personally, I think those clichés are overused. But you have to understand that if you feel it necessary to express yourself without regard to everyone else in the room, than you are being inflicted by the same ailment that makes me believe your words are offending me. Your perception is to say what you want. My perception is to hear what I what. You attack. I defend. You have this idea that by your right to say anything, it's my stupidity to be hurt by it. That's pretty naïve.
Your analogy of flailing arms is a really good one, although you claim that speech is different from violence. I don't think it is. I think that we all know what propaganda is capable of. I also know that anyone who has felt awkward growing up also knows how mean people can be. So, I'm going to stick to my idea that you can't go walking through a room swinging your arms claiming "well if you're too stupid to move out of the way, THAT'S YOUR FAULT." My freedom is to remain where I'm standing. It takes less energy that way.
It is so wonderfully idealistic to think that we can go running around saying whatever we want and that it doesn't affect anyone unless the receiver chooses it. The world doesn't work that way... and I think you know that. Every breath we take affects something small, that influences something else, that keeps some other action from taking place, etc. Our job is to determine what IS and ISN'T our responsibility, and what we CAN and CAN'T control in order to provide as much freedom as is physically possible for THE LARGEST number of people possible.
Like I said, it's a paradox, and you suckered me into defending a side. If you had told me that censorship is always necessary, I would have argued that it wasn't... just to open your eyes to the futility of arguing paradoxes.
You can't be completely free as long as all the rest of us are breathing. Tough shit.
Eh... not quite. I see what you're trying to say, but you're creating this paradox: "whose rights are more important?"
Now I don't know about all you scholarly types, but in my experience, if you find yourself in a paradox, then one of your assumptions MUST BE WRONG. Nature does not allow paradox.
Your argument therefore is, "who's rights are more important, the censor or the 'censoree?'" Is it freer to be able to express yourself, or is freer to live without offense? Either is an infringement on complete freedom... and if you had read my original response, I had said, "the only way to truly be free is to be the only human alive within the range of that person's perceptions." Meaning, the only way to be free is to be completely unique and solitary. Once you create two people and let them interact, you must restrict one's freedoms by definition.
Therefore the poor assumption here is that a person can be truly free while coexisting with another. Nope, can't happen.
Like I said, 517 responses discussing both sides of a paradox are asinine.
As to your comments specifically, the freedom of speech amendment applies only to the government. Citizens are allowed by law to censor as much as they like... it's only been recently (late 1960's) that the common misinterpretation of "free speech" is to mean "no censorship!"
Once the right of the citizen to speak freely without fear of retribution by the government is established, all citizens actions fall under the "your rights, my nose" clause... which you may interpret as violence, but that is too literal a translation.
What a bunch of long winded crap. Thank God I didn't waste the $25k a year to go to Princeton... sheesh.
Bottom line: You rights stop where my nose starts. And there are 270 million noses in this country. Why did you waste all that typing to ignore that fact? The only way to truly be free is to be the only human alive within the range of that person's perceptions.
OF COURSE our freedom is limited when people deal with each other. You can't do just anything that you want to do... that's why we spend all those years in grade school learning how to "get along well with others." I can't believe that college types haven't learned lessons that first graders take for granted.
"Freedom" is a term regarding government vs citizens. This completely tangential conversation on how I'm not free because I have to feed my dog everyday is verbal masturbation at best.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with the fringe element here.
In sixth grade we were taught that to be "scientific" meant to have an hypothesis, and then remain completely unbiased while you collect data. Thus proving or disproving your theory. Then other scientists were supposed to pour over your findings for a few years, in order to ensure whether there were any flaws in your data.
Now, there are TONS of instances where this didn't work (so don't waste our time replying with examples please), and it's TIME CONSUMING. But, for the most part it works well.
The problem I have with the global warming theory, is that it's data is restricted to the last hundred years or so. Meteorology is a NEW SCIENCE. Hell, they can't even predict TOMORROW'S weather, how accurate can they be about stuff that happened 100 years ago?
So, granted that there's alot of evidence that could conceivably point to human's destruction of our global weather patterns.... however, THERE IS NO CONTROL GROUP TO COMPARE THIS TO! How do we know what the earth's normal weather cycles are in THE LONG TERM?!
We only just got to the North Pole in the 1950s. How do we know it was even there in the 1850s?
It's seems to me that one day, Amazon said to it's collective self, "Why Not? It couldn't hurt to try." And filed patent applications for everything internet related.
The patent office followed the established rules and granted them patents. They have a system established that works the way it works. None of that surprises me. What surprises me is that it was all pretty much uncontested. Any arguments to the patents were never brought out in the media, so it at least has the APPEARANCE of being uncontested.
What also surprises me is that Slashdot continually posts these lame Jon Katz articles, when personally I would try to get an interview with the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, a Deputy Commissioner, or even one of the two Assistant Commissioners. Boy, wouldn't that be informative and useful....
This is a continuing conversation for me. There was a reply I typed up a couple of days ago in the Sega Shutting Down Hundreds of ROM sites article that best sums it up.
Your perceptions need adjustment, for what you find "obvious" is completely inaccurate. I have been reading for over two years now. I have been responding too, but no one listens.
I remember the patents to which you refer, and yes the patent office gave them patents. But that was because they weren't contested by anyone. You should read section 135 of Title 35 (Interferences). It speaks of the appeal board. "Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability." Meaning you boneheads could have gotten together and appealed the patent on the grounds previously mentioned.
But you were too busy patting yourselves on the backs for being so "intellectually superior." Let me ask, of all the people who read Slashdot, have any of you actually written to the Patent Office to complain? (And I have a couple of patents, and busted my ass to get them... so I can tell you how difficult it is to obtain one of these puppies.)
The problem here is that you all just whine, but don't do anything. The patent office probably received the applications, couldn't find anything in the library to contest Amazon's (and you ever so cleverly worded "Some obscure company's") claims... and accepted the damn things. If you were so APPALLED, you should have immediately collected your evidence on why the patents were non-justified, and sent your findings to the Patent Office.
It's not the patent office's fault that you all are lazy. But if you want to stop them, you'll have to be MUCH better informed than you are.
and here's why:
US Code Title 35 (regarding patents)
"Sec. 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made."
If you all would stop whining, and put together a letter to the patent office detailing why this is obvious to us (since we ARE in the trade), you might be surprised that they pull the damn thing!
No.
You obviously don't know anything about patent law. You're taking the last two or three years of software patents as your basis, and those patents won't hold up. The problem with those patents is that they're being given without any understanding by the patent office of the technology itself. As time goes by that will change. In the meantime, those patents that have been awarded will never stand up in court, where patent law inevitably functions.
Patent law has may more hurdels to jump through than does copyright law. I know, I have several. There is no way 99% of ANY programs would ever get a patent because they are not new ideas. Plus, most fall under the common sense clauses.
Copyright law is to protect publishers from other publishers. It has nothing to do with protecting artists. It's a limitation to free speech and should be used sparingly in assigning to a publisher it's PUBLICATION rights. But the artist has no control of his works. Once released he has no right to them. At least thats the way it's supposed to work. But people have this moronic idea that their ideas are theirs and they OWN them.
So copyright law has been twisted to this view.
But I'll bet you it will take only one case to get to the supreme court, and all of this stuff goes away as unconstitutional.
As to your book of recipes, the recipes themselves are not copyrightable. You'll find tons of them published in Sunday newspapers across the country. The collection itself is though.
actually I would never try to LICENSE any software to begin with...
You're asking the wrong guy that type of question. I don't try to make a living selling software packages on shelves to people who don't know where the on/off switch is. I get hired to write programs.
Which means, I go in, get the functional description, do my job for a month or two, get paid for my time... and then I go on to the next job. Plus, there will always be a next job, since technology is slipping out of our hands more and more each day. I have no fear that I will always find work.
So my question to you is: "Why do you feel so insecure as to insist that your services require a compensetory model completely different from any other service industry?"
Why doesn't the waitress charge by calorie... and then roaylties in inderect proportion to your excrement? Why doesn't a lawyer charge your family for every year you live as a free man AFTER you are acquited of murder? Why doesn't your auto mechanic charge you for every piston stroke plus a surcharge by gallons of gas your car consumes? These are as crazy ideas as your so called "proprietary" products.
Why do lawyers lose their licenses for charging two different clients for the same hour? That's called "double billing," and is illegal in service industries. However, you feel entitled to charge THOUSANDS of times for the same hour's work... and feel that it's stealing if you DON'T.
My point before is that under United States Constitutional Law... intellectual property CAN NOT exist legally. There ISN'T such a thing. No one owns ideas. It's a crock made up by people who know that their product, left to natural economic forces, won't make money without MAJOR government protection.
It's corporate welfare.
So let's say I write a piece of software... which I do every day. The deal is I don't make my living off of the code. I make my living off of the service. The "licenses" that Sega has written giving certain people the RIGHT to use their software are VAPOR! We haven't ever pushed the fact because it wasn't hurting anybody. We felt that as long as they made a good product, who were we to take on huge corporations on technicalities that didn't really affect us. Plus, who's going to waste the money to fight something in court that was completely HYPOTHETICAL... more of a legal argument to be argued by grad students in mock trials.
But now, thanks to the "dot coms," everybody wants to make money off of US, the techies and geeks. They want to apply the old rules to our new economy. They want to take what is in our heads and put it in neat pakages and sell it for a tidy profit.
This isn't about ego... if you wrote good code, I'll give you huge amounts of credit. This isn't about my programs keeping food in my mouth... I'm in a service industry, I don't make anything that I want to be sold as a product. It's about corporations claiming the rights to our most basic of freedoms.
Intellectual property. There is no such thing!
I think that the patent applications that I referred to happened even before that though. It should prove interesting to the debate to get the facts though...
I'll go browsing and see what I can find.
I do remember stories of Bill Gates in the early eighties saying that the software industry required intellectual property laws, or the industry would never get off the ground. And I think that those comments were made after various failed attempts at patent applications.
They may be part of our society, but they aren't legal. Not in the United States anyway.
It's a tough concept to wrap your mind around, especially if you grew up with shrink wrap licensing being the norm, but Freedom of Speech protects freedom of thought. Freedom of the Press doesn't mean of the media. Hell, the media didn't even exist when the constitution was written. It meant that you can transmit any thought or idea via the most highly tecnological advances of the time... the printing press.
Which means that no one has a RIGHT to any idea. The government CAN NOT regulate it. Period.
Now if a company wants to go into a binding CONTRACT with you, then you may (under special circumstances), give up those rights voluntarily. But both sides would have to agree to that. I don't believe that shrink wrap licensing can possibly hold the same weight as a notorized, signed and witnessed contract. Plus contract law itself is controversial. There are millions of people who would even disagree with the idea that you can voluntarily give up your rights under ANY circumstances.
You base your argument on the idea that thoughts belong to someone. That you can actually come up with an original idea that no one else has ever thought up before. That you should be paid for being such a genius. That any idea used twice is stealing.
Yes, people have put a lot of time and effort into programs. No one doubts that. But as a programmer I can tell you, all of my programs have code taken from somewhere else. Every line that they teach in college was written by somone else before I got there. Where should the line between information and product be drawn? And who is to determine it?
My suggestion simply is that if programs are ideas, (since that is copyright laws' jurisdiction) then you can not own them. And if they are tools, then they should be ONLY covered by patent law... and all the limitations to which patent law restricts these ideas. Thus after 17 years (or 19...I can't remember) these programs would become public domain. And any code found to be of common sense could never, EVER be patented in the first place.
So if you can make a program that moves the world forward by THOUSANDS of years of evolution, then apply for a patent. The government should give you a limited monopoly for a third of your life to benifit from the gifts you've given to mankind.
But if your program is obsolete in five years, then how beneficial was it to humanity in the first place. Why do you feel that you should be given a monopoly when our constituion specifically states that we have a right to those ideas. And how can I possibly STEAL something to which you had no right in the first place?!
What distresses me is how quickly people are willing to give up their rights for money. How quick you were to judge this as STEALING. Like it was something physical. Like I was breaking into someone's house and raping his daughter. It's a fricking program!
Programming is a service industry. It is not a PRODUCT industry. You don't make X amount of dollars on every widget you sell... you get paid X amount of dollars on every hour you sit there at the console... doing your job. The old timers remember those days... before Microsoft. Before programming was warped into a money making machine for the technology stunted.
Stop giving them the edge. Wake up. You're not stealing anything. They're programs. Like every other scientific advancement, we're SUPPOSED to be building new programs on the foundations of the OLD ONES! That's all. They are ideas expressed in ones and zeros. They only have value if WE GIVE THEM VALUE. Stop feeding the marketing types.
Slashdot should do a story on "intellectual property." There is no such thing. Copyright law applied to published books and written works. It was protection between publishing companies. The author sold his rights to the publishing company via CONTRACT. If no contract was signed, it was typically the author's right to go write for someone else. The company with the copyright never owned anything tangible, just protection from the U.S. government from other publishing firms.
Patent law dealt with inventions and manufacturing. (i.e. tools) The U.S. government would grant protection FOR A LIMITED TIME for any invention granted that it:
1. Wasn't of common sense. Meaning no one in that particular field wouldn't have made the logical leap themselves.
2. They had to show that they would put it to good use... that they weren't just sitting on it.
Both of these ideas have been completely warped. Everyone now thinks that they have the right to "get rich quick" with one idea. Like if I put a year into this program, my great-great grand children should be able to live off of the royalties.
I propose that the government simply remove it's protection from copyrights dealing with computer programs. They should have fallen under the patent law to begin with. In fact it is my understanding the the computer companies originally had attempted to file for patents for software, AND WERE DENIED. So they obtained copyrights instead... which I would view as unconstituional.
Let them make all the contracts they wish, with both author's and consumers... but the government should have no authority to offer it's protection in obviously CIVIL cases like this. And the judicial branch should review the latest bunch of intellectual property laws coming out of the legislative branch... and declare them unconstitutional before it's too late.
This was what I was talking about in the "Emus And Do-It-Yourself Arcade Construction" article reply just two days ago. (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/04/12412 17&mode=thread)
You can talk about open sourcing and free software all you want, but in the end it's the courts that will decide how the internet and new technology will be shaped. And typically this is decided by the side with the most expensive lawyers.
Huh... and the emu article was only two days ago...
Usually I don't reply to a thread, but...
You missed the point. It isn't about one company coming back for their rights to their 20 year old ROMs. It's about the HOARDES of people that are scanning slashdot and other geek pages for ideas from which to profit.
The "dot coms" are volitile not because they're new technology, or the next best thing... it's more about morons with no understanding of OUR world that are trying to get rich quick.
So again, the more you beat a dead horse... the more someone wants to make money off of it. We all knew about emulators, so why post a story about them? Is Slashdot going mainstream? Are they trying to provide stories for the masses?
We didn't need... nor did we enjoy this story. The only thing it accomplishes is that someone may have got it into their heads to buy the "rights" for these roms... someone who wants to make a profit... someone who is WILLING to fight tooth and nail for them. Some NEW PLAYER with teeth.
It's not the past we have to worry about... it's the hoardes of fresh morons that scare me.
How wise is it to post these kinds of stories? I really wish that Slashdot wouldn't.
.... Everybody and their mother are downloading from Napster. RIAA now has enough evidence to gain an injunction (albeit temporary).
Let's go over what we've learned, shall we? Nobody gave a crap about Napster, until it became public knowledge what Napster really was. Then 'lo and behold...
I enjoy emulators. These ancient games are why I became interested in computers to begin with. We all did. We wanted to program these games for ourselves... this was before Nintendo. So checking out the ROMs and source on these babies is a wet dream for me.
But, thanks to idiots and their concepts of intellectual properties (which is unconstitutional unless a patent is involved... don't believe me? Read the constitution) want money for doing nothing. And some marketing major is going to read these articles and say, "wow, what a good idea... we can charge for this. I'll take these articles to my boss and show him that there's a market for this stuff." We always get things taken away because we aren't smart enough TO KEEP OUR MOUTHS SHUT!
I guarantee you some MBA from Namco is going to file suit against MAME in the next few weeks.
Rule #1: If someone is having a good time, there's money to be made.
Rule #2: Anyone can make money, it takes a wise person to spend (and acquire) it well.
Therefore, any good time will be inevitably ruined by some greedy moron trying to make money. The only thing that protects us is that they're not involved in our world. They don't even know that emulators exist. So please, stop informing them!
strangely enough,
I figure there are plenty of side show freaks with GREAT people skills.
I still think a nerd is personality inept.
The modern definition of geek, to me at least, implies interest in cerebral, scientific stuff.
A nerd wears tape in the middle of his glasses and takes his sister to the prom.
Dude, there's a difference between NERD and GEEK.
I don't mind being called a geek... it just means my interests are eccentric compared to the mind-numbed hoards.
But a nerd implies that I don't have any people skills.
Anyone else know the difference?
Less blurry close-ups of people's pores please, and more full body shots of the bride's maids.
... GASP!
It's always nice to put a face with the text... but in this case
Quake is open sourced now. You should have ported your pics into it and let us WALK THROUGH the church. Sheesh.
Seriously, congrats.
Let this man's dying body be a warning to the rest!
I thought about that response, and since it's a geek's primary responisbility to educate others (thus boosting his/her own self image), I didn't like my answer...
The 8080 used 8 bit words. The 8088 used 8 bit external bus and internally was 16 bit. Thus any interface it had with other hardware was 8 bit.
A lot of PLC equipment is still based on this standard. Thus the hardware (Input/Ouput cards) communicate with the main processor on an 8 bit backplane.
8 bits give you a maximum integer value of 255. Therefore a year like 1987 won't fit. The best you can do is save the last two digits (ie. 87).
The only fix to this problem was changing the hardware... no software fix available.
Make Sense?
(I guess I didn't want you to do the math after all.)
Production is based on time sychronization. You need to produce so many of an item at such an such a time. The union workers have their bonuses based on these quotas, therefore all of our production data systems are time synched. Then there's shelf-life of products, and appropriate labelling systems to go with that...etc, etc.
When you program these systems, you have one integer word reserved for the last two digits of the year. All of the programming on top of that is based on this one integer word.
You do the math.
PS. Some of the systems didn't even get to that step. Their hardware literally locked up at 00:00 01/00
I'm kind of offended at the tons of posts saying:
"NOTHING HAPPENED!!! See, I told you so."
I'm sure all the IT and CompSCI people out there weren't really worried about any Y2K stuff... but we control systems engineers (level 1 production types) were terrified of it.
Anxious as we were, we tried to get management to fund an inspection of all systems... and since management is usually made up of non-geek types, there was no way to squeeze a penny out of them for what they felt was unneeded computer work.
BUT, thank God for all of the Y2K hype!!! If management hadn't seen Dan Rather explaining (in small terms) what the possibilities for Y2K were, we wouldn't have received time and funding to inspect our systems.
So after 7 or 8 of my clients found 85% of their systems to NOT function after a clock change to Y2K, we spent MILLIONS of dollars this year to fix them PRIOR to the actual event. These weren't Intel based processors mind you... these were Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and older Distributed Control Systems (DCSs), some even based on Z80 and 8080 technology. The industrial/manufacturing world is still decades behind in it's control systems... so while you guys are lounging in your linux alphas... we're still doing machine code.
I guess what I'm saying is Y2K was VERY REAL for us... and you can thank the thousands of engineers, technicians and programmers who fixed the problems BEFORE THEY HAPPENED for a very quiet new year's eve.
Happy New Year everyone.
First off... this is a perfect example of why I think Slashdot needs to be retrofitted... HEAVILY:
All of the comments moderated as INFORMATIVE were completely stereotypical and misleading.
I live in Pittsburgh. I know Pittsburgh. You sir are no Pittsburgher!
First off, Pittsburgh isn't dying. You'd have to have your head in the sand to not see all of the money pouring through this city. New stadiums, new airport, new convention center, tons and tons of new businesses... not to mention Cranberry Township (which was the fastest growing area in the country a year or two ago.)
Secondly, there are no more steel mills! The old politicians were voted out four years ago. Allegheny county is now run by REPUBLICANS!!! (I'm not sure that's an improvement, but it is definitely a change!)
Thridly, Pittsburgh is fast becoming a new corridor. Demographics show a new area cropping up with an increase in commerce between here and Cleveland. Mark my words, in 10 years this area will be referred to as Cleveburgh. (It's a safe bet, I heard the term used in an economic discussion on NPR already.)
And what's all this crap about NO TECHNOLOGY here? Pittsburgh had the HIGHEST ISP PROVIDERS PER PERSON in the country! No kidding! Everyone points to silicon valley for technology advances, and that's fine... but there are tons of advances in technology that happen in hidden corners everywhere. In fact the first television station in the country was here. What's to say that the first 3D O/S won't be invented here also? Take FORE systems for example: it is my understanding that the company was founded by a couple of CMU professors. Billionares now I'm sure.
Add to all this the Biomedical Engineering school that Pitt added a few years ago. Then there's the high tech council here... the Birmingham Maglev at the airport (soon to be cloned by the maglev downtown). Some of the best hospitals in the world (including Children's). Watch some Discovery channel or The Learning Channel sometimes. There are tons of technological stories coming out of this town.
Every company here is growing, new control systems in the industry fields... new equipment in the medical field... you name any aspect of this city, and it's completely UNLIKE a steel town.
I'm a very successful control systems engineer. This is a wonderful city for working. For the last six years, I have never wanted for work. Of course I could move to another "hipper" town to make more money... but the cost of living would also increase. Reality is, I live in a house that cost me less than $100k and if it was in NJ would sell for $250k. It's in a safe and quiet neghborhood, 20 minutes from a brand spanking new international airport. Cheap, clean happy living. If I want to go to the beach, I can drive the 4-5 hours and spend the weekend. (Personally, I think beaches are dirty and littered nowadays.)
I was born in California, and I hated it. The weather was gorgeous, but the people there suck. I need more out of life than crowds of flakes, space cadets and rude self-centered vain people. (Yes I'm stereotyping... ironic isn't it?)
To each his (/her) own. But, for those of you that are capable and thrive in an environment where you don't need other people (those of you that think of yourselves as Grizzly Adams types) would love it here.
(On a final note: the decrease in population is not solely a Pittsburgh phenomenon. This is happening everywhere on the east coast. NY state was hit hardest! Philly was hit worse than Pittsburgh)
Living in Pittsburgh, I'm glad there are so many people that can't find any reason to live here. It's a city with a very small town feel to it... and we like it that way. Usually we walk around with a "wink wink nudge nudge" kind of attitude about living here. You can always tell an out of towner... No traffic, almost no crime. Plenty of things to do... if you're an insider... otherwise, you're left out in the cold. Most of the people that don't like it here are from New Jersey or New York. Thank God they don't stay. Being born in California (Ventura), and travelling around the country my entire life, I can say that the best thing about Pittsburgh is the "fend for yourself" attitude. Lots and lots of freedom. If you're a cattle minded person, you're out of luck here. Lots of forest, rivers, wildlife... plus the city can keep you up busy if you play it right. By the way, Pittsburgh has over a million people living here. Most census numbers don't take just the city limit population... since NO ONE LIVES DOWNTOWN!!! Only an out of towner moron wouldn't know that.
hmmm...posted this twice, nothing happened. shucks:
Not like anyone's going to read this, but....
You can tell that anyone who finds this well-spoken article to be offensive was never a 14-year-old boy. It's so easy to knee-jerk and say "HE'S SO SEXIST!" Of course that instantly reveals you as someone who is completely in the dark about being male. I have never found any tenet of feminism or political correctness that takes into consideration the turmoil your body goes through when you first become a teenager. If you weren't there, then you have no idea. Like a kick in the crotch, the pain can not be described to a woman... you either know or you don't. So a man's "journey" through mating begins with confusion and only gets worse with age. It's unfortunate that men need to see things in sexual context FIRST, but they do. Most likely because it began that way with puberty.
But, not to come across too heavy, let me tell you what I know about women:
1. From the onset of puberty to about 13 - Women don't want you, they want some poster boy. Shaun Cassidy, Menudo, New Kids on the Block, Back Street Boys, etc....
2. From 13 to 16 - they don't want you, they want older guys. Why would they date someone in their grade when there's tons of boys that can increase their popularity status?
3. From 16 to 18 - they don't want you, they want boys from other schools. How many times did I hear "I'm so sick of boys from our school... they're so immature!"
4. From 18 to 19 - they want you, but they want everybody... so what difference does it make? All college women go through that "How pretty am I" stage, where they get drunk and flop on their backs for just about anybody. (Well, maybe not ALL WOMEN... but enough that everyone reading this is laughing right now.)
5. From 19 to 21 - they don't want you, they don't want anybody. Now they often want time to themselves, and are very careful about whom they date. Which usually means joining an invisible convent.
I think that this is where our hero (Uncle Robin) picks up. You've gone through your entire life watching women making the absolute biggest fools of themselves, but yet you still are stupid enough to want "in." What do you do?
Kudos to you Uncle Robin.
You both have decent points and good logic skills. But you are too quick to throw away the idea that offending speech IS an affront to freedom.
... blah blah blah
If my purpose is to go through life completely alone and untouched, I should have a right to do that. Just because you have this NEED to express your views, why would you accost me when I don't care, (of course this whole discussion then would be a bit ironic.)
Let's pick a word... oh I know: NIGGER
That word isn't an offense? That's not a slap in the face to someone? Is it simply their problem for being offended? Why isn't it some of my responsibility for using the word KNOWING that it will offend them?
The reason that we have had this argument for 200 years is that there IS a limitation to what can be inflicted on someone. If you claim that it's all in my head for being offended (i.e. my inference), then why can't I claim that you're are verbally abusing me (i.e. your implication)... A mother DOES NOT have the right to verbally degrade her child as a LOSER its entire life. A principle does NOT have the right to call a student "a no good stupid SPIC." A cop does NOT have the right to tell a person to "suck me, and I won't give you the ticket." Charles Manson does not have the right to say, "ya know, it would be really cool if you all would go kill an entire family for me." If the right to free speech is so pure, then are you saying that there should be no anti-conspiracy laws, anti-racism laws, anti-treason laws, military "top secret" clearances, public school curriculums, acceptable public servant behavior, acceptable work place behavior, liability law suits, media accountability, governmental responsibility to the truth?
You all know the clichés. "You can't yell fire in a public building." "Children need to be protected from certain evil elements." Personally, I think those clichés are overused. But you have to understand that if you feel it necessary to express yourself without regard to everyone else in the room, than you are being inflicted by the same ailment that makes me believe your words are offending me. Your perception is to say what you want. My perception is to hear what I what. You attack. I defend. You have this idea that by your right to say anything, it's my stupidity to be hurt by it. That's pretty naïve.
Your analogy of flailing arms is a really good one, although you claim that speech is different from violence. I don't think it is. I think that we all know what propaganda is capable of. I also know that anyone who has felt awkward growing up also knows how mean people can be. So, I'm going to stick to my idea that you can't go walking through a room swinging your arms claiming "well if you're too stupid to move out of the way, THAT'S YOUR FAULT." My freedom is to remain where I'm standing. It takes less energy that way.
It is so wonderfully idealistic to think that we can go running around saying whatever we want and that it doesn't affect anyone unless the receiver chooses it. The world doesn't work that way... and I think you know that. Every breath we take affects something small, that influences something else, that keeps some other action from taking place, etc. Our job is to determine what IS and ISN'T our responsibility, and what we CAN and CAN'T control in order to provide as much freedom as is physically possible for THE LARGEST number of people possible.
Like I said, it's a paradox, and you suckered me into defending a side. If you had told me that censorship is always necessary, I would have argued that it wasn't... just to open your eyes to the futility of arguing paradoxes.
You can't be completely free as long as all the rest of us are breathing. Tough shit.
Eh... not quite.
I see what you're trying to say, but you're creating this paradox: "whose rights are more important?"
Now I don't know about all you scholarly types, but in my experience, if you find yourself in a paradox, then one of your assumptions MUST BE WRONG. Nature does not allow paradox.
Your argument therefore is, "who's rights are more important, the censor or the 'censoree?'" Is it freer to be able to express yourself, or is freer to live without offense? Either is an infringement on complete freedom... and if you had read my original response, I had said, "the only way to truly be free is to be the only human alive within the range of that person's perceptions." Meaning, the only way to be free is to be completely unique and solitary. Once you create two people and let them interact, you must restrict one's freedoms by definition.
Therefore the poor assumption here is that a person can be truly free while coexisting with another. Nope, can't happen.
Like I said, 517 responses discussing both sides of a paradox are asinine.
As to your comments specifically, the freedom of speech amendment applies only to the government. Citizens are allowed by law to censor as much as they like... it's only been recently (late 1960's) that the common misinterpretation of "free speech" is to mean "no censorship!"
Once the right of the citizen to speak freely without fear of retribution by the government is established, all citizens actions fall under the "your rights, my nose" clause... which you may interpret as violence, but that is too literal a translation.
What a bunch of long winded crap. Thank God I didn't waste the $25k a year to go to Princeton... sheesh.
Bottom line: You rights stop where my nose starts. And there are 270 million noses in this country. Why did you waste all that typing to ignore that fact? The only way to truly be free is to be the only human alive within the range of that person's perceptions.
OF COURSE our freedom is limited when people deal with each other. You can't do just anything that you want to do... that's why we spend all those years in grade school learning how to "get along well with others." I can't believe that college types haven't learned lessons that first graders take for granted.
"Freedom" is a term regarding government vs citizens. This completely tangential conversation on how I'm not free because I have to feed my dog everyday is verbal masturbation at best.
Stop wasting our time