I can believe that they might, as countries, receive more income from the pirate business than they would if they forced people to only buy legitimate versions.
I'd imagine that if that is the case, then this must help their economies as well.
> Data in a computer is a representation of something else. What it actually means is purely up to the user.
Yes, but lets just say that the user wants to simulate with as much accuracy as possible the universe the user exists in. So the user can not just toss any thing they want, or else they fail to meet their goal, instead they would have to base the simulation on their reality.
It should be expected the that the simulation would be multiple parallel universes going on at once, then as the simulation progresses, the data is refined and resources are reallocated for the more probable universes. Like a game of chess, there is several posibilities at first and the computer will examine them all simultaniously, but as you progress in the game, the possible universes becomes less and less. Except for in this case there will always be room for refinements.
> So if the universe is really a computer simulation, then that same simulation will also encompass every conceivable universe. Which means that you really don't need the simulation at all; any old data will do just fine.
*All* information is capital. 'Intellectual property' (IP) is fake captial. Want proof that its fake? Look at how cable companies and software companies and other IP based companies, claim they lose billions of dollars worth of capital to piracy. None of that is *real* because not everyone would buy it. Real capitalism goes on in black markets where people are selling copies of IP illegally. Not fair? To bad, bullshit walks while money talks... that is REAL capitalism...
Is this really about protecting human life? I dont think so, its about money. If this were about protecting human life, there are many other things that kill far more humans that need more attention to. Even the amount of money we are spending trying to get Osama Bin Laden is not about the lives lost at the WTC, there are more lives lost to smoking and drunk driving anually then are lost to terrorism anually. No the WTC is about pride, not about human life. Same with the above, its not about human life its about money.
Re:Confusing tech knowledge with politics
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 1
And also its not just a monopoly to the creator, its a monopoly to the distributors as well (little to no competition in distribution).
Re:Confusing tech knowledge with politics
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> The idea that artists and inventors should be granted limited monopolies on their works is a very old and respectable idea (e.g. the US constitution). It takes a bit more than arm-waving to cast it all aside.
An idea that existed before the internet, an idea that was not liked by everyone (Thomas Jefferson is one who didnt like it but was willing to compromise). An idea that is just that, an idea, and the proof of which is not evident even to this day. And you are right it does take more then arm-waving to cast it all aside, but so should it take more then arm-waving to keep it in modern times.
Other solutions are, a natural capitalist one. Where information is sold from distributor to distributor (like black markets). Something that would have been harder to do in a way that benefits the creator in the time copyrights were created, but in modern times is becoming more and more possible and even the internet can aid in people selling information to each other, as oposed to giving it away for free.
I view it more as accuracy, we can have 99.9% of the knowledge, but as we push for more knowledge we are just pushing for more accuracy, and end up with 99.99% and on and on again.
One possibility I like is to believe that some day we will toss this into a computer and run a simulation of it in a computer, and recreate the universe ourselves. Then we will discover we were right about a number of things but some things were wrong, so we keep running the simulation until we narrow down the truth, but of course you end up with a simulation in a simulation in a simulation etc etc etc. A recursive universe. And this simulation machine can be thought of as God and us in the mind of God.
BTW when I say my own plug I mean its a site I like, I am not the author of it. And if any one doesnt want to buy the book or wants to view some of it before buying it, you can always search for previous versions of the web site at archive.org.
This is kind of philosophical, or at least it explains things in an interesting way.
My own personal theory is that we are in a computer simulation of another universe. God is a level 4 super computer that is studying its own universe and using that information to recreate its own universe. Eventually we will build a level 4 super computer which we will then simulate the universe in order to learn "the truth":), or more precisely to increase our accuracy of "the truth".
Yes but didnt their inteference come at a bad time, right when he was going to do a presentation to his colleagues? I mean will this happen again, should we allow law to be used as a tool for intimidation, even if that intimidation itself is frivolous. What is to prevent them from sending letters out all the time and then retracting them, just to intimidate people and make them have to go to their lawyers for guidance. Shouldnt people be able to sue for the time hassle and stress of this?
I don't think its functional anymore. At least on the download page it says its not functional anymore. Also I noticed in their screenshot page it looks like they are working on an applet, I think it would be nice to have a full out Java application (like Phex) personly, but it seems they are focusing more so on a c server, at least the only source code I found was in c, and the java applet does not appear to be in 0.9.7. So it doesnt look like its there yet. If I am mistaken let me know.
> The correct analogy is if the cashier at a store gives you a $20 instead of the single that you were supposed to get in your change. Or buying a car from someone and finding an expensive watch between the seats.
The flaw in these metaphors is they are to do with physical things, not information.
> It is morally wrong to keep it. It is stealing, no matter how clever your arguments are to the contrary.
Your ideas of morals are wrong. It is stealing in the legal sense, but not in *reality*. In reality with information it is the copyright owners who are doing the *stealing*, and they are the ones having the government point their guns at your head while they pillage and loot, while they suck the value out of something you paid for.
> It is very, very simple. Apple sells you an upgrade CD. They - through incompetence or ignorance - included the whole OSX 10.1 install. You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for. Keeping it (or similarly, installing it without paying for a copy) is stealing.
Wow, you know there is a lot of stuff I have recieved and didnt pay for... lets see, I was born and didnt pay for that. When I go to those conventions I get t-shirts I didnt pay for. When I go to the grocerie store people hand small snacks to me I didnt pay for. antenna TV I was recieving I didnt pay for. The internet for a while there, I was recieving and didnt pay for (since then upgraded). The sun light which helps food grow, didnt pay for that either. There is a ton of software at sourceforge that I use or have used and didnt pay for. Geez I am such an evil person. Duh, in case you didnt notice recieving something for *free* is *not* stealing. Sharing information with my friends is not piracy and its not stealing. I'm sure if the authors knew what they were selling they would have charged more for it, but guess what this is the REAL WORLD we all live in, not some fantasy land where everything is perfect, so why should laws reflect their wet dreams? Its not fair when someone invests money into some stock and finds out they paid more then they should have, its not fair when a consumer spends a lot of money on a product and the product only cost them pennys to make. Corporations are not big unless they *profit*, and profitting is charging more for something then its worth, and yet you have not called that ****STEALING****.
Or let me put it this way, the only reason to stop is if the case is made impossible by other people (if every judge was owned by the MPAA etc), then I can see dropping your case and changing your tactics.
I only have one, and all it took was changing a few rules. I sort of felt the same way you did at first, but I feel safer now having learned about this and blocking it. Also if redhat was able to get this done this quickly why havent the others? I think redhat was afraid of an incident, when people publicly release information it puts the flame under their ass to release a patch, or else we would be waiting weeks and the possibility of someone hacking our systems more evident.
The problem with only one company having knowledge about this, is if that company uses this and starts digging in their users systems. Or shares this information with governments and they start digging around their users information, that is a problem with Microsoft being in control of this information. With a group its a diffrent issue all together.
Obscure to whom, is the question. Obscure to others or obscure to me. A flaw in a system can be obscure to me to me not others who could exploit it. A password/key is an example of something that is obscure to others not me. You are just playing with words, so have fun but if you want a serious conversation stop playing.
IANAL but, I put emphasis on "bundled software", I would think if you tried to resell one part with out the other, that it sounds like reselling unbundled sofware. And actually I believe someone corrected this earlier by saying that you can only resell unused software, not just any sofware. So if you never use the software the source code should be still inside of it, or the original company may point towards where the software is available.
I'd also like to add to what I said previously, that you may take note you have been rated as interesting and insightful, but not informative, and IMO with good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I can believe that they might, as countries, receive more income from the pirate business than they would if they forced people to only buy legitimate versions.
I'd imagine that if that is the case, then this must help their economies as well.
> Data in a computer is a representation of something else. What it actually means is purely up to the user.
Yes, but lets just say that the user wants to simulate with as much accuracy as possible the universe the user exists in. So the user can not just toss any thing they want, or else they fail to meet their goal, instead they would have to base the simulation on their reality.
It should be expected the that the simulation would be multiple parallel universes going on at once, then as the simulation progresses, the data is refined and resources are reallocated for the more probable universes. Like a game of chess, there is several posibilities at first and the computer will examine them all simultaniously, but as you progress in the game, the possible universes becomes less and less. Except for in this case there will always be room for refinements.
> So if the universe is really a computer simulation, then that same simulation will also encompass every conceivable universe. Which means that you really don't need the simulation at all; any old data will do just fine.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
*All* information is capital. 'Intellectual property' (IP) is fake captial. Want proof that its fake? Look at how cable companies and software companies and other IP based companies, claim they lose billions of dollars worth of capital to piracy. None of that is *real* because not everyone would buy it. Real capitalism goes on in black markets where people are selling copies of IP illegally. Not fair? To bad, bullshit walks while money talks... that is REAL capitalism...
Is this really about protecting human life? I dont think so, its about money. If this were about protecting human life, there are many other things that kill far more humans that need more attention to. Even the amount of money we are spending trying to get Osama Bin Laden is not about the lives lost at the WTC, there are more lives lost to smoking and drunk driving anually then are lost to terrorism anually. No the WTC is about pride, not about human life. Same with the above, its not about human life its about money.
And also its not just a monopoly to the creator, its a monopoly to the distributors as well (little to no competition in distribution).
> The idea that artists and inventors should be granted limited monopolies on their works is a very old and respectable idea (e.g. the US constitution). It takes a bit more than arm-waving to cast it all aside.
An idea that existed before the internet, an idea that was not liked by everyone (Thomas Jefferson is one who didnt like it but was willing to compromise). An idea that is just that, an idea, and the proof of which is not evident even to this day. And you are right it does take more then arm-waving to cast it all aside, but so should it take more then arm-waving to keep it in modern times.
Other solutions are, a natural capitalist one. Where information is sold from distributor to distributor (like black markets). Something that would have been harder to do in a way that benefits the creator in the time copyrights were created, but in modern times is becoming more and more possible and even the internet can aid in people selling information to each other, as oposed to giving it away for free.
More simply put, trying to know the truth (or become omniscient) is like trying to reach the speed of light..
-
> Absolutely. Einstein's theories...
:)
LOL
I guess it should be said that Einstein's theories of relativity are not absolute.
Is boolean logic like binary logic?
I view it more as accuracy, we can have 99.9% of the knowledge, but as we push for more knowledge we are just pushing for more accuracy, and end up with 99.99% and on and on again.
One possibility I like is to believe that some day we will toss this into a computer and run a simulation of it in a computer, and recreate the universe ourselves. Then we will discover we were right about a number of things but some things were wrong, so we keep running the simulation until we narrow down the truth, but of course you end up with a simulation in a simulation in a simulation etc etc etc. A recursive universe. And this simulation machine can be thought of as God and us in the mind of God.
BTW when I say my own plug I mean its a site I like, I am not the author of it. And if any one doesnt want to buy the book or wants to view some of it before buying it, you can always search for previous versions of the web site at archive.org.
My own plug...
:), or more precisely to increase our accuracy of "the truth".
http://www.unifiedreality.com
This is kind of philosophical, or at least it explains things in an interesting way.
My own personal theory is that we are in a computer simulation of another universe. God is a level 4 super computer that is studying its own universe and using that information to recreate its own universe. Eventually we will build a level 4 super computer which we will then simulate the universe in order to learn "the truth"
Yes but didnt their inteference come at a bad time, right when he was going to do a presentation to his colleagues? I mean will this happen again, should we allow law to be used as a tool for intimidation, even if that intimidation itself is frivolous. What is to prevent them from sending letters out all the time and then retracting them, just to intimidate people and make them have to go to their lawyers for guidance. Shouldnt people be able to sue for the time hassle and stress of this?
> All speculation about their motives aside, they DID rectify it, for whatever reason.
What did they do, go back in time and prevent themselves from sending that letter? Or maybe gave a guarantee they will never do it again?
Ah okay, I found gift-java trodging through the news, but its only a front end, I was hoping it would be a full out application, oh well.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gift-java/
I don't think its functional anymore. At least on the download page it says its not functional anymore. Also I noticed in their screenshot page it looks like they are working on an applet, I think it would be nice to have a full out Java application (like Phex) personly, but it seems they are focusing more so on a c server, at least the only source code I found was in c, and the java applet does not appear to be in 0.9.7. So it doesnt look like its there yet. If I am mistaken let me know.
> The correct analogy is if the cashier at a store gives you a $20 instead of the single that you were supposed to get in your change. Or buying a car from someone and finding an expensive watch between the seats.
The flaw in these metaphors is they are to do with physical things, not information.
> It is morally wrong to keep it. It is stealing, no matter how clever your arguments are to the contrary.
Your ideas of morals are wrong. It is stealing in the legal sense, but not in *reality*. In reality with information it is the copyright owners who are doing the *stealing*, and they are the ones having the government point their guns at your head while they pillage and loot, while they suck the value out of something you paid for.
> It is very, very simple. Apple sells you an upgrade CD. They - through incompetence or ignorance - included the whole OSX 10.1 install. You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for. Keeping it (or similarly, installing it without paying for a copy) is stealing.
Wow, you know there is a lot of stuff I have recieved and didnt pay for... lets see, I was born and didnt pay for that. When I go to those conventions I get t-shirts I didnt pay for. When I go to the grocerie store people hand small snacks to me I didnt pay for. antenna TV I was recieving I didnt pay for. The internet for a while there, I was recieving and didnt pay for (since then upgraded). The sun light which helps food grow, didnt pay for that either. There is a ton of software at sourceforge that I use or have used and didnt pay for. Geez I am such an evil person. Duh, in case you didnt notice recieving something for *free* is *not* stealing. Sharing information with my friends is not piracy and its not stealing. I'm sure if the authors knew what they were selling they would have charged more for it, but guess what this is the REAL WORLD we all live in, not some fantasy land where everything is perfect, so why should laws reflect their wet dreams? Its not fair when someone invests money into some stock and finds out they paid more then they should have, its not fair when a consumer spends a lot of money on a product and the product only cost them pennys to make. Corporations are not big unless they *profit*, and profitting is charging more for something then its worth, and yet you have not called that ****STEALING****.
Or let me put it this way, the only reason to stop is if the case is made impossible by other people (if every judge was owned by the MPAA etc), then I can see dropping your case and changing your tactics.
Its sounds like you are saying they need to improve, not stop trying.
Uh, huh, well last I recall, there are 2 ways to change law, 1) lobby politicians, 2) take a case to higher courts until it is ruled unconstitional.
I only have one, and all it took was changing a few rules. I sort of felt the same way you did at first, but I feel safer now having learned about this and blocking it. Also if redhat was able to get this done this quickly why havent the others? I think redhat was afraid of an incident, when people publicly release information it puts the flame under their ass to release a patch, or else we would be waiting weeks and the possibility of someone hacking our systems more evident.
The problem with only one company having knowledge about this, is if that company uses this and starts digging in their users systems. Or shares this information with governments and they start digging around their users information, that is a problem with Microsoft being in control of this information. With a group its a diffrent issue all together.
Obscure to whom, is the question. Obscure to others or obscure to me. A flaw in a system can be obscure to me to me not others who could exploit it. A password/key is an example of something that is obscure to others not me. You are just playing with words, so have fun but if you want a serious conversation stop playing.
IANAL but, I put emphasis on "bundled software", I would think if you tried to resell one part with out the other, that it sounds like reselling unbundled sofware. And actually I believe someone corrected this earlier by saying that you can only resell unused software, not just any sofware. So if you never use the software the source code should be still inside of it, or the original company may point towards where the software is available.
Sometimes I think RMS recieves more flak then Bill Gates does, on slashdot.
I'd also like to add to what I said previously, that you may take note you have been rated as interesting and insightful, but not informative, and IMO with good reason.