heaven forbid we try and stop people from dumping boosters on people's houses
Isn't that pretty much already illegal? I mean, even if there isn't explicitly a law addressing such, in a civil trial, someone having this happen would win the case. So, why do we need another regulation about violating personal property rights? We already have them.
In the Libertarian worldview, there is nothing wrong with people making money, or having lots of employees under "normal means" (generally, not violating someone elses private property rights and acting according to contractual agreements). However, in the Libertarian worldview, "Big Corporations" as we know them in modern times, are subsidized and can only exist through "Big Government". That is a problem. The subsidies come in the form of a normal subsidy, cash, as well as things that aren't technically subsidies, but have the same affect, such as (I don't know how to make bullets, and don't care to look it up right now):
market protection - such as IP rights and trade protections such as tarriffs
liability protection -- the people in a company are frequently not responsible for the acts of the company itself, which is a bit ridiculous considering the company doesn't have the ability to make any decisions. So, individuals are essentially allowed to make decisions they won't be held responsible for. This is a direct result of government intervention/regulation.
Big corporations as they are now only exist via government. Without the government giving the blessings they do, corporations would take a much different form (I imagine) at the most, and at the least wouldn't allow individuals involved in those corporations to seperate themselves from the decisions they make.
Don't misunderstand me, I think there is certainly value in being exposed to things that you might not otherwise ever be exposed to.
Here's the thing though, first of all, the amount of value in that is purely subjective. That means that it's different for everyone. There is no "one-right-way" to live life. Second, you made a fairly common statement:
I was exposed to something different and something I found interesting. I've had friends who started in the same technical major as me, but change when they took classes that weren't within the major and found that they LOVED them more than computers.
Based on that logic, why didn't you just stay in school another, say, 4 years? You could keep going to different schools (including trade schools) and learning all kinds of different things. However, noone really does that. Most people say things like "it's really valuable to learn lots of different stuff", but ironically, most of those same people think that 2 years (assuming the second 2 years of college is focused on your major/career) is just the right amount of time to study lots of topics superfluous to their career choice. I just find it funny that so many people think it was so great, but get the hell out as soon as possible (there are rare exceptions of course...).
with a variety of disciplines and experiences, provides.
I'm still trying to figure out what value was provided with that "variety of experience". Is it "good" to be able to talk about a variety of things? Sure. Is it worth the money you pay, and the time and money lost (opportunity cost, money you could be earning in a career) while you are there? Maybe not. That's more subjective. Unfortunately, most people consider that to be a purely objective question (as will be evident very soon in this slashdot article discussion). Personally, and this is just my experience, a good portion of the "basic" classes in college were a rehash of high school. You can only talk about Maslow's hierarchy of needs so many times...once is usually enough.
Colleges in general need to seriously consider improving the signal/noise ratio in a 4-year degree program. Every department head thinks their particular subject is the most important thing since written language and fire, but it's not that simple. We all have different needs and, more importantly, interests. Why waste time (for the school, professor and student) teaching something that most people will forget when the semester ends (and actually be able to survive in the "real world" with zero repercussions despite having forgot it)?
Actually, there is a multiplier (something like 2 - 2.5 if memory serves) by which economists say wealth is created for every dollar deposited into the bank as savings.
Mars is starting to look a lot less dead than had been supposed.
Or mars is starting to look like it has a lot more volcanoes (or similar activity) than previously reported. But why assume some crazy thing like that when we can just assume there is life on Mars?
You are making an overall point about wither IP laws are, on the whole, good or bad. That doesn't really contradict my point.
The idea that IP laws serve (to a net positive degree) the public/consumer is debatable. I happen to believe that, on the whole, they don't. I won't argue the point however, primarily because people a lot smarter and more articulate than I have done so adequately already, however, we should at least recognize the one certain point that IP laws remove the responsibility for protecting business practices/ideas/etc from the business. Without these laws, companies would be responsible for protecting "idea assets" themselves, now we all (consumers) subsidize business by paying (via higher taxes) for that protection for them.
The only reason I made that post, was just to point out something that most people don't think about. For example, we have all heard the argument(s) that without IP laws, no one would ever create anything new. Again, I won't argue that, but we (generally, based on my own experiences from childhood until current) typically don't get the whole picture. What are the othe sides of the coin, even before getting into arguing specific points such as wether indeed there would or would not be new innovation without IP laws?
And since when does a private company get to use the government's resources for its own civil suits?
Well, IP laws on the whole operate under (or it might be better to say "were created under") basically the same precedent. That is, government/public resources used to protect private business ventures.
Of course society impacts children, children are a part of society, and society affects us all. However, we as individuals should not be forced to act a certain way just so you can feel good about how you raised your children. If you don't want society to impact your children, then leave society, instead of trying to shape all man kind into your idea of a perfect child-bearing environment.
Maybe I'm just not understanding something, but if it applies to existing OSS projects, they are already on the internet for everyone to get/use (sounds pretty easy to me). If it's for new projects, why not just use something again already available publicly for creating/managing projects?
(and no they are not all for our spouses/children).
I think a good deal of those purchases MUST be attributed to spouses/children. If not, then you would be saying that women who DO play games, play something like 1.5x as many different games as their male counterparts, and I can't think of any reason at all to believe that. It's a lot easier to believe that women do more Christmas/birthday/etc shopping than men.
Personally, my wife certainly plays as much as I do, but I'm the one who finds new games to play, and then she will start playing our new purchase as well.
The problem is that politicians see themselves as capable of correctly legislating everything (proof: They legislate things all the time they can't possibly be educated about). I also see this as proof that politicians aren't generally interested in truth, but rather are more interested in looking important/effective.
And for the record, even though I did very well in high school and college chemistry, I missed the "dihydrogen monoxide" reference at first. However, I never presumed to be knowledgable enough to actually make a policy creating decision on the matter either...they did.
Tim Barhorst, an information technology consultant in Hyde Park who has been using the technology for a year, said he's been impressed.
"I find it's very convenient," he said, noting that he can set up his computer anywhere there's an electric outlet.
So, it looks like you can connect with your own account anywhere.
As I said, I know that the USPS has a government mandated monopoly on "first-class mail", although I admit I don't know exactly how that is defined. Someone suggested no one else is allowed to send a letter for under 50 cents...
As for the mailboxes, in my post I stated that "in some weird way" they become government property. The post above me suggested that the USPS owns the boxes, but that's clearly not completely true. Yes, I can take my mailbox out. I could also change my mailbox if I wanted to. However, if I wanted to hang pizza coupons on houses, I can legally hang it on your door, but it's illegal to hang it on (or put it in) the mailbox. It would also be illegal if I put a dead animal (say, putting roadkill in someone's box as a joke) in your mailbox, but not illegal if I put it on your doorstep. So, as I said, in some "weird way", those boxes do become protected by federal law, a sort of implied "government property", although that might not be the best term applied to it.
This is a somewhat circular problem you created. It would be possible to protect things like this through contractual agreements (as I mentioned), however, because none of us have ever seen an envrionment in which companies actually have to spend only their own money to protect investments (instead, they get to leach off of taxpayers), many of us buy the idea that it would be an impossible environment to do business in, and that it's impossible, and either come up with, or repeat examples we've heard from companies where it seems "impossible" to protect those ideas. It isn't. Further, in many cases, it may not even be necessary to protect an idea to make money...there are lots of variables, including thins like expertise and first-to-market.
The USPS has a government mandated monopoly on first-class mail. As for the USPS "owning" those mailboxes...that's partially true. If you buy a new house, the only way to get a new mailbox is to head to a Home Depot, purchase one, dig a hole, and plant it in the ground. However, in some weird way I'm not really sure about, the mailbox then becomes US property. So, the USPS only owns those mailboxes by mandate, they don't actually pay for or install them. It is a completely government mandated monopoly, even to the point of requiring YOU to pay for the equipment. A sweet deal for the USPS if you ask me.
Because an idea is neither tangible nor scarce. There is not a natural conflict of ownership related to an idea. There is however, potential for a natural conflict of ownership related to land.
only there were some way to help try to ensure that I could recover the money I spend developing it
There is a way, it's called a "trade secret", just don't tell anyone else how you did it. And, if you have to tell other people, protect your idea through contractual agreements.
There is no reason in the world why people should have to pay (via taxes) to replace you having to go to the trouble of protecting your own ideas.
I'd be interested to know how your moral stand that doesn't let MS protect its source how it wants somehow does allow Linux to protect its source how it wants.
For the record, I'm not anti-microsoft at all. In regard to this particular thread, I was commenting on the position taken that the most important point was that a law was being broken. There was no comment on the importance of IP laws (or the counter argument that IP laws are bad). I happen to be in the latter group (anti IP laws), but I respect both positions when made intelligently. What I don't respect are the drones in the country who proclaim "...it's the law!". I think those people are sheep.
With that out of the way, to answer your question, the only reason the GPL depends on IP laws, is because of the environment created by those laws to begin with. In a way, it uses the system, to work around the system. If it weren't for IP laws to begin with, the GPL woundn't be necessary. I could go on with why I believe IP laws are unnecessary and just plain bad, but there are others who can discuss those points more intelligently than I (I'm far from being a great speaker/writer).
You've drawn an illogical conclusion. I happen to think IP laws are not needed...but that's certainly a debatable topic. However, nothing about my post implies that I don't pay for software (which I do), or that I don't follow the laws regarding IP, or even (until this post) how I felt about them. I was just commenting on your weak will that causes you to determine your morality according to what other people tell you it should be. You didn't make any statement about IP laws, wether they are justifiable or not etc...just the typical apathetic/sheep-mentality American comment along the lines of "...it's against the law."
So I guess the founding fathers of the US should have been modded down...or Harriet Tubman or Dr. Martin Luther King (and others that broke segregation laws)?
It's rather unfortunate that people like yourself base your morals on what papa gub'ment tells you they should be.
Slashdot Mirror
No libertarian worth his salt would tell you that you should be able to emit {insert substance/energy/whatever here} any time and anywhere you want.
Where could you have possibly gotten that idea?
heaven forbid we try and stop people from dumping boosters on people's houses
Isn't that pretty much already illegal? I mean, even if there isn't explicitly a law addressing such, in a civil trial, someone having this happen would win the case. So, why do we need another regulation about violating personal property rights? We already have them.
In the Libertarian worldview, there is nothing wrong with people making money, or having lots of employees under "normal means" (generally, not violating someone elses private property rights and acting according to contractual agreements). However, in the Libertarian worldview, "Big Corporations" as we know them in modern times, are subsidized and can only exist through "Big Government". That is a problem. The subsidies come in the form of a normal subsidy, cash, as well as things that aren't technically subsidies, but have the same affect, such as (I don't know how to make bullets, and don't care to look it up right now):
market protection - such as IP rights and trade protections such as tarriffs
liability protection -- the people in a company are frequently not responsible for the acts of the company itself, which is a bit ridiculous considering the company doesn't have the ability to make any decisions. So, individuals are essentially allowed to make decisions they won't be held responsible for. This is a direct result of government intervention/regulation.
Big corporations as they are now only exist via government. Without the government giving the blessings they do, corporations would take a much different form (I imagine) at the most, and at the least wouldn't allow individuals involved in those corporations to seperate themselves from the decisions they make.
Generally, with the XBox, the problem seems to be it's a bit difficult to know which games are yours.
Saved Games:
2hr 45 mins
3hr 12 mins
1hr 6 mins
Which are mine, and which my wife's? Granted, it's not impossible to figure out, but it would be nicer if it was something like:
Saved Games:
MyName 2hr 45 mins
MyName 3hr 12 mins
WifesName 1hr 6 mins
Don't misunderstand me, I think there is certainly value in being exposed to things that you might not otherwise ever be exposed to.
Here's the thing though, first of all, the amount of value in that is purely subjective. That means that it's different for everyone. There is no "one-right-way" to live life. Second, you made a fairly common statement:
I was exposed to something different and something I found interesting. I've had friends who started in the same technical major as me, but change when they took classes that weren't within the major and found that they LOVED them more than computers.
Based on that logic, why didn't you just stay in school another, say, 4 years? You could keep going to different schools (including trade schools) and learning all kinds of different things. However, noone really does that. Most people say things like "it's really valuable to learn lots of different stuff", but ironically, most of those same people think that 2 years (assuming the second 2 years of college is focused on your major/career) is just the right amount of time to study lots of topics superfluous to their career choice. I just find it funny that so many people think it was so great, but get the hell out as soon as possible (there are rare exceptions of course...).
with a variety of disciplines and experiences, provides.
I'm still trying to figure out what value was provided with that "variety of experience". Is it "good" to be able to talk about a variety of things? Sure. Is it worth the money you pay, and the time and money lost (opportunity cost, money you could be earning in a career) while you are there? Maybe not. That's more subjective. Unfortunately, most people consider that to be a purely objective question (as will be evident very soon in this slashdot article discussion). Personally, and this is just my experience, a good portion of the "basic" classes in college were a rehash of high school. You can only talk about Maslow's hierarchy of needs so many times...once is usually enough.
Colleges in general need to seriously consider improving the signal/noise ratio in a 4-year degree program. Every department head thinks their particular subject is the most important thing since written language and fire, but it's not that simple. We all have different needs and, more importantly, interests. Why waste time (for the school, professor and student) teaching something that most people will forget when the semester ends (and actually be able to survive in the "real world" with zero repercussions despite having forgot it)?
Actually, there is a multiplier (something like 2 - 2.5 if memory serves) by which economists say wealth is created for every dollar deposited into the bank as savings.
Mars is starting to look a lot less dead than had been supposed.
Or mars is starting to look like it has a lot more volcanoes (or similar activity) than previously reported. But why assume some crazy thing like that when we can just assume there is life on Mars?
You are making an overall point about wither IP laws are, on the whole, good or bad. That doesn't really contradict my point.
The idea that IP laws serve (to a net positive degree) the public/consumer is debatable. I happen to believe that, on the whole, they don't. I won't argue the point however, primarily because people a lot smarter and more articulate than I have done so adequately already, however, we should at least recognize the one certain point that IP laws remove the responsibility for protecting business practices/ideas/etc from the business. Without these laws, companies would be responsible for protecting "idea assets" themselves, now we all (consumers) subsidize business by paying (via higher taxes) for that protection for them.
The only reason I made that post, was just to point out something that most people don't think about. For example, we have all heard the argument(s) that without IP laws, no one would ever create anything new. Again, I won't argue that, but we (generally, based on my own experiences from childhood until current) typically don't get the whole picture. What are the othe sides of the coin, even before getting into arguing specific points such as wether indeed there would or would not be new innovation without IP laws?
And since when does a private company get to use the government's resources for its own civil suits?
Well, IP laws on the whole operate under (or it might be better to say "were created under") basically the same precedent. That is, government/public resources used to protect private business ventures.
Society has an impact on the raising of children.
Of course society impacts children, children are a part of society, and society affects us all. However, we as individuals should not be forced to act a certain way just so you can feel good about how you raised your children. If you don't want society to impact your children, then leave society, instead of trying to shape all man kind into your idea of a perfect child-bearing environment.
Maybe I'm just not understanding something, but if it applies to existing OSS projects, they are already on the internet for everyone to get/use (sounds pretty easy to me). If it's for new projects, why not just use something again already available publicly for creating/managing projects?
-- 39% of gamers are women
-- 57% of people who purchase games are women
(and no they are not all for our spouses/children).
I think a good deal of those purchases MUST be attributed to spouses/children. If not, then you would be saying that women who DO play games, play something like 1.5x as many different games as their male counterparts, and I can't think of any reason at all to believe that. It's a lot easier to believe that women do more Christmas/birthday/etc shopping than men.
Personally, my wife certainly plays as much as I do, but I'm the one who finds new games to play, and then she will start playing our new purchase as well.
The problem is that politicians see themselves as capable of correctly legislating everything (proof: They legislate things all the time they can't possibly be educated about). I also see this as proof that politicians aren't generally interested in truth, but rather are more interested in looking important/effective.
And for the record, even though I did very well in high school and college chemistry, I missed the "dihydrogen monoxide" reference at first. However, I never presumed to be knowledgable enough to actually make a policy creating decision on the matter either...they did.
From the article:
Tim Barhorst, an information technology consultant in Hyde Park who has been using the technology for a year, said he's been impressed. "I find it's very convenient," he said, noting that he can set up his computer anywhere there's an electric outlet.
So, it looks like you can connect with your own account anywhere.
In a major catastrophe, isn't it fairly likely that power lines will be down anyway (thereby eliminating HAM interference)?
As I said, I know that the USPS has a government mandated monopoly on "first-class mail", although I admit I don't know exactly how that is defined. Someone suggested no one else is allowed to send a letter for under 50 cents...
As for the mailboxes, in my post I stated that "in some weird way" they become government property. The post above me suggested that the USPS owns the boxes, but that's clearly not completely true. Yes, I can take my mailbox out. I could also change my mailbox if I wanted to. However, if I wanted to hang pizza coupons on houses, I can legally hang it on your door, but it's illegal to hang it on (or put it in) the mailbox. It would also be illegal if I put a dead animal (say, putting roadkill in someone's box as a joke) in your mailbox, but not illegal if I put it on your doorstep. So, as I said, in some "weird way", those boxes do become protected by federal law, a sort of implied "government property", although that might not be the best term applied to it.
This is a somewhat circular problem you created. It would be possible to protect things like this through contractual agreements (as I mentioned), however, because none of us have ever seen an envrionment in which companies actually have to spend only their own money to protect investments (instead, they get to leach off of taxpayers), many of us buy the idea that it would be an impossible environment to do business in, and that it's impossible, and either come up with, or repeat examples we've heard from companies where it seems "impossible" to protect those ideas. It isn't. Further, in many cases, it may not even be necessary to protect an idea to make money...there are lots of variables, including thins like expertise and first-to-market.
The USPS has a government mandated monopoly on first-class mail. As for the USPS "owning" those mailboxes...that's partially true. If you buy a new house, the only way to get a new mailbox is to head to a Home Depot, purchase one, dig a hole, and plant it in the ground. However, in some weird way I'm not really sure about, the mailbox then becomes US property. So, the USPS only owns those mailboxes by mandate, they don't actually pay for or install them. It is a completely government mandated monopoly, even to the point of requiring YOU to pay for the equipment. A sweet deal for the USPS if you ask me.
Because an idea is neither tangible nor scarce. There is not a natural conflict of ownership related to an idea. There is however, potential for a natural conflict of ownership related to land.
only there were some way to help try to ensure that I could recover the money I spend developing it
There is a way, it's called a "trade secret", just don't tell anyone else how you did it. And, if you have to tell other people, protect your idea through contractual agreements.
There is no reason in the world why people should have to pay (via taxes) to replace you having to go to the trouble of protecting your own ideas.
Sorry, but you don't get points for feeding your kids. And, it's possible to feed/clothe/raise your children, and still be a bad person.
I'd be interested to know how your moral stand that doesn't let MS protect its source how it wants somehow does allow Linux to protect its source how it wants.
For the record, I'm not anti-microsoft at all. In regard to this particular thread, I was commenting on the position taken that the most important point was that a law was being broken. There was no comment on the importance of IP laws (or the counter argument that IP laws are bad). I happen to be in the latter group (anti IP laws), but I respect both positions when made intelligently. What I don't respect are the drones in the country who proclaim "...it's the law!". I think those people are sheep.
With that out of the way, to answer your question, the only reason the GPL depends on IP laws, is because of the environment created by those laws to begin with. In a way, it uses the system, to work around the system. If it weren't for IP laws to begin with, the GPL woundn't be necessary. I could go on with why I believe IP laws are unnecessary and just plain bad, but there are others who can discuss those points more intelligently than I (I'm far from being a great speaker/writer).
You've drawn an illogical conclusion. I happen to think IP laws are not needed...but that's certainly a debatable topic. However, nothing about my post implies that I don't pay for software (which I do), or that I don't follow the laws regarding IP, or even (until this post) how I felt about them. I was just commenting on your weak will that causes you to determine your morality according to what other people tell you it should be. You didn't make any statement about IP laws, wether they are justifiable or not etc...just the typical apathetic/sheep-mentality American comment along the lines of "...it's against the law."
So I guess the founding fathers of the US should have been modded down...or Harriet Tubman or Dr. Martin Luther King (and others that broke segregation laws)?
It's rather unfortunate that people like yourself base your morals on what papa gub'ment tells you they should be.