Here's a real-life example for you: I was sued in a US court for a part of my website.
How is that relevant? If the UN controlled the Internet (whatever that means), some tool in Cali can still sue you. As it is, just write to the judge or call them up and explain matters. If you haven't been there in 15 years, what's a judgement going to accomplish?
Think about it this way: if you are sending information via e-mail to a colleague, and neither he or you is in the US, that information passes through the department of commerce in the US because that's where to root servers are.
So The US knows that someone in funet.se is talking to someone in aol.de - if it's a problem to you, then just set up some mirrors of the root servers in the EU and let corps use those. Now there's no info going through US servers.
The war on terror gets more difficult if the primary relay points are outside of the Patriot Act's control and sniffery.
Fine by me. With the current admin happy to wiretap without warrants and hold people for years without access to counsel, I'm fine with some terrorists going free. Besides, who cares about the war on terror - it isn't actually a war.
The cost of living here is a whole lot less that CA or NY.
I'm betting you're in florida. It's nice there if you can handle hurricanes and the driving dead. Too bad the only part I really like is uber expensive, but hey, that's Miami. Yummy south beach and whatnot.
But how much? Also, if you're shitcanning resumes with gaps, then you've just eliminated people who got nailed in 2001 and people who took 6 months off to travel. The no income tax thing is irrelevant - they'll get you one way or the other.
With a Dual Woodcrest 3.0GHZ, ECC RAM, and a high-end workstation graphics card, she would get way better 2D rendering and multi-monitor support than with a SLI something.
How many years has it been since 2D was an issue? Any decent graphics card can do 2D as fast as you can manage, and workstation graphics are for CAD - the only difference is the ability to draw antialiased lines or something (important to CAD - not so for games). If you want a nice fast box, you can get a supermicro that does dual Opterons with 8G or more and also has SLI for your gaming needs.
To extend the analogy, all the apartments are trivially unlocked, because key locks only keep honest people honest. You can make a key that will open any lock it fits into in about a minute on a key cutter or in 20 or 30 minutes with a file. This works on every lock.
Think of the 2nd ammendment as a final line - if you're marching on Washington, then things have already gone completely to hell and you're going to clean house with a 308. Nasty as the stuff you mentioned are, they don't warrant the complete dissolution of the federal government. We do need to get rid of the war on drugs - it's at the root of a good number of our problems.
Yeah, and what it really is is a remote detonated bomb. Cheap, too. If it comes down to it, you'd be well advised to make some of your own and get some prepaid cell phones (or whatever), since it's a lot harder to find out who detonated one compared to a sniper.
Give me a fiscally responsible, small government, pro-life candidate who supports the war on terror (appeasers need not apply) and I'll consider voting for them.
War on Terror? Are you insane? There's no such thing, just us invading a couple countries and trying (poorly) to stomp Al Queda.
Come on, security researchers, you know what the political climate is! Is there no other way to point out that something may be easily forged besides actually creating a tool to forge it!?
No, because anything less will be dismissed as fearmongering.
Of course people who make/own IP/software and write EULA's for such software would disagree with you that the above is the 'true' substance of "the contract" or "agreement" they have between their customer and themselves when they make the purchase.
who cares? The Supreme Court has given weight to the notion that you can trat shrinkwrap software similarly to buying a CD.
Infinite supply and negligable reproduction costs is certainly not irrelevant. It enables new aspects of economic distribution impossible under traditional scarcity based models. Do you think current economic theory would survive if humanity found a way to infinitely produce at low cost anything they desired?
Absolutely. It may, in fact, look like the Diamond Age - Economic Theory cares not one whit what is scarce. It just shows what happens with that scarce thing. Right now, bandwidth is free, but connections cost money. The Tier1 guys have come to terms with that, and it'll trickle into the rest of us eventually.
You're still stuck in old pre-internet one dimensional producers-as-sole-source of success and therefore 100% ownership (which means total and absolute control) based economic thinking.
And you're stuck in the new economy hype. Things change on the surface, but the ocean remains unmoved.
Ideally, if you could maximize profit even more by charging dynamic prices to customers based on a percentage of their income maximizing both "legal" exposure/use and profit.
No, you charge based on willingness to pay, and their called price points.
I do not know how anyone interested in economic theory and society, would want to hold back the new possibilities infinite supply opens up for the benefit of others beyond the typical producer, domination instinct based self-interest arguments rooted in scarcity.
That doesn't mean anything. The theory describes how things work (but doesn't address abundance too well), but isn't a prescriptive thing - you can't really confirm it until you try stuff with what is basically an educated guess. You first have to try something and see it work before building theory around it. anything else requires coercion by force of arms, which I will not support.
Ownership as it is currently thought about is justified when resources are limited, but when such goods are effectively unlimited, the nature of ownership and the benefiting others need to be rethought.
Goods ae still unlimited. Write a song and there is now one more song. Whether you can infinitely reproduce it or not, there is only the one song. Come back when I can xerox my pistons and head gasket for when I overdo the racing.
The idea that producers "own" exclusively or succeed exclusively is an illusion, if the person was populated by 1 person or all the people there existed a market for his product died, how exactly would the producer benefit without other people their to support him and enable his success?
Bullshit. You've asserted this multiple times without supporting what you think the reality is or why producers should go along with you.
There is NO contract. When something is bought, people barely understand anything beyond knowing that money gets exchanged for a good.
That's a contract - goods for money.
Not to mention we're talking about intellectual works here who's supply is infinite.
Irrelevant.
The success of any product or business depends on those other people existing in the first place, you act like these people operate or produce in a vacuum, they do not.
That's how it is for everything. You haven't said anything that hasn't been true for 10,000 years.
When really once a company achieves a safe profit threshold on a product any piracy does not really do "hurt" them economically at all for digital goods.
Sounds like someone drank the karl marx koolaid. The basis of IP rights is not whether you've profitted sufficiently (which is impossible to measure anyway), but the advancement of the arts. By setting a bar based on how commercially successful a product is, you punish the successful and deny them the funds to do their next big thing.
Lastly, lot's of good idea's and fan projects (remakes) get killed by copyright owners who have no intention of profiting off future works of the property, and this is in fact a tremendous disservice to customers and fans who PAYED for the product.
So what if you paid for the product? If you want to do derivative works, you should first negotiate with the copyright holder. Nobody owes you anything if you do a lot of work and infringe someone's copyright, thus rendering it useless.
I do believe that the biggest problem is that when customers pay for a product they shouild gain some measure of ownership of the work and freedom for the work
Based on what? This doesn't advance the state of the art or enrich the public domain, nor was it in the contract. Are you planning to erode one of the bases of this society in order to do something because it 'feels right'?
Their arguments typically revolve around you not having sufficient knowledge of the problem space if not for your employment, therefore the work belongs to them. It's your basic fruit-from-the-poison-tree argument
Of course, there's a presumption that knowledge of the field in general is not specific to a single employer, so it isn't really valid to say that. Put another way, if that argument was allowed, then the employer could prevent you from seeking employment based on experience with them, since you wouldn't have that either if you didn't work there.
Well, I do have the right to determine ertain things about how my software is used. Specifically, I can license it any way I like. By default, you don't have the right to my stuff - I have to grant it.
In a world where even PayPal can't get it right (and nobody cares) what does it matter?
Aside from their lack of care with your money, paypal gets a lot right - all their communication refers to paypal.com, not somerandomurl.com like a lot of real banks do. This single thing is probably worth way more than any fancy SSL hokum.
Wait, you want it to be verifiable after the fact? Go away and don't come back until you realize just how stupid that idea is. You don't really want someone being able to buy a vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a real-life example for you: I was sued in a US court for a part of my website.
How is that relevant? If the UN controlled the Internet (whatever that means), some tool in Cali can still sue you. As it is, just write to the judge or call them up and explain matters. If you haven't been there in 15 years, what's a judgement going to accomplish?
Think about it this way: if you are sending information via e-mail to a colleague, and neither he or you is in the US, that information passes through the department of commerce in the US because that's where to root servers are.
So The US knows that someone in funet.se is talking to someone in aol.de - if it's a problem to you, then just set up some mirrors of the root servers in the EU and let corps use those. Now there's no info going through US servers.
The war on terror gets more difficult if the primary relay points are outside of the Patriot Act's control and sniffery.
Fine by me. With the current admin happy to wiretap without warrants and hold people for years without access to counsel, I'm fine with some terrorists going free. Besides, who cares about the war on terror - it isn't actually a war.
The cost of living here is a whole lot less that CA or NY.
I'm betting you're in florida. It's nice there if you can handle hurricanes and the driving dead. Too bad the only part I really like is uber expensive, but hey, that's Miami. Yummy south beach and whatnot.
But how much? Also, if you're shitcanning resumes with gaps, then you've just eliminated people who got nailed in 2001 and people who took 6 months off to travel. The no income tax thing is irrelevant - they'll get you one way or the other.
With a Dual Woodcrest 3.0GHZ, ECC RAM, and a high-end workstation graphics card, she would get way better 2D rendering and multi-monitor support than with a SLI something.
How many years has it been since 2D was an issue? Any decent graphics card can do 2D as fast as you can manage, and workstation graphics are for CAD - the only difference is the ability to draw antialiased lines or something (important to CAD - not so for games). If you want a nice fast box, you can get a supermicro that does dual Opterons with 8G or more and also has SLI for your gaming needs.
To extend the analogy, all the apartments are trivially unlocked, because key locks only keep honest people honest. You can make a key that will open any lock it fits into in about a minute on a key cutter or in 20 or 30 minutes with a file. This works on every lock.
Think of the 2nd ammendment as a final line - if you're marching on Washington, then things have already gone completely to hell and you're going to clean house with a 308. Nasty as the stuff you mentioned are, they don't warrant the complete dissolution of the federal government. We do need to get rid of the war on drugs - it's at the root of a good number of our problems.
Actually, once your factor out druggies and gangs (and suicide), gun deaths in this country are fairly low.
The only conflict that justifies nukes is someone else using them. Then you glass their capitol and major port cities.
Yeah, and what it really is is a remote detonated bomb. Cheap, too. If it comes down to it, you'd be well advised to make some of your own and get some prepaid cell phones (or whatever), since it's a lot harder to find out who detonated one compared to a sniper.
Give me a fiscally responsible, small government, pro-life candidate who supports the war on terror (appeasers need not apply) and I'll consider voting for them.
War on Terror? Are you insane? There's no such thing, just us invading a couple countries and trying (poorly) to stomp Al Queda.
Come on, security researchers, you know what the political climate is! Is there no other way to point out that something may be easily forged besides actually creating a tool to forge it!?
No, because anything less will be dismissed as fearmongering.
Of course people who make/own IP/software and write EULA's for such software would disagree with you that the above is the 'true' substance of "the contract" or "agreement" they have between their customer and themselves when they make the purchase.
who cares? The Supreme Court has given weight to the notion that you can trat shrinkwrap software similarly to buying a CD.
Infinite supply and negligable reproduction costs is certainly not irrelevant. It enables new aspects of economic distribution impossible under traditional scarcity based models. Do you think current economic theory would survive if humanity found a way to infinitely produce at low cost anything they desired?
Absolutely. It may, in fact, look like the Diamond Age - Economic Theory cares not one whit what is scarce. It just shows what happens with that scarce thing. Right now, bandwidth is free, but connections cost money. The Tier1 guys have come to terms with that, and it'll trickle into the rest of us eventually.
You're still stuck in old pre-internet one dimensional producers-as-sole-source of success and therefore 100% ownership (which means total and absolute control) based economic thinking.
And you're stuck in the new economy hype. Things change on the surface, but the ocean remains unmoved.
Ideally, if you could maximize profit even more by charging dynamic prices to customers based on a percentage of their income maximizing both "legal" exposure/use and profit.
No, you charge based on willingness to pay, and their called price points.
I do not know how anyone interested in economic theory and society, would want to hold back the new possibilities infinite supply opens up for the benefit of others beyond the typical producer, domination instinct based self-interest arguments rooted in scarcity.
That doesn't mean anything. The theory describes how things work (but doesn't address abundance too well), but isn't a prescriptive thing - you can't really confirm it until you try stuff with what is basically an educated guess. You first have to try something and see it work before building theory around it. anything else requires coercion by force of arms, which I will not support.
Ownership as it is currently thought about is justified when resources are limited, but when such goods are effectively unlimited, the nature of ownership and the benefiting others need to be rethought.
Goods ae still unlimited. Write a song and there is now one more song. Whether you can infinitely reproduce it or not, there is only the one song. Come back when I can xerox my pistons and head gasket for when I overdo the racing.
The idea that producers "own" exclusively or succeed exclusively is an illusion, if the person was populated by 1 person or all the people there existed a market for his product died, how exactly would the producer benefit without other people their to support him and enable his success?
Bullshit. You've asserted this multiple times without supporting what you think the reality is or why producers should go along with you.
There is NO contract. When something is bought, people barely understand anything beyond knowing that money gets exchanged for a good.
That's a contract - goods for money.
Not to mention we're talking about intellectual works here who's supply is infinite.
Irrelevant.
The success of any product or business depends on those other people existing in the first place, you act like these people operate or produce in a vacuum, they do not.
That's how it is for everything. You haven't said anything that hasn't been true for 10,000 years.
When really once a company achieves a safe profit threshold on a product any piracy does not really do "hurt" them economically at all for digital goods.
Sounds like someone drank the karl marx koolaid. The basis of IP rights is not whether you've profitted sufficiently (which is impossible to measure anyway), but the advancement of the arts. By setting a bar based on how commercially successful a product is, you punish the successful and deny them the funds to do their next big thing.
Lastly, lot's of good idea's and fan projects (remakes) get killed by copyright owners who have no intention of profiting off future works of the property, and this is in fact a tremendous disservice to customers and fans who PAYED for the product.
So what if you paid for the product? If you want to do derivative works, you should first negotiate with the copyright holder. Nobody owes you anything if you do a lot of work and infringe someone's copyright, thus rendering it useless.
I do believe that the biggest problem is that when customers pay for a product they shouild gain some measure of ownership of the work and freedom for the work
Based on what? This doesn't advance the state of the art or enrich the public domain, nor was it in the contract. Are you planning to erode one of the bases of this society in order to do something because it 'feels right'?
Their arguments typically revolve around you not having sufficient knowledge of the problem space if not for your employment, therefore the work belongs to them. It's your basic fruit-from-the-poison-tree argument
Of course, there's a presumption that knowledge of the field in general is not specific to a single employer, so it isn't really valid to say that. Put another way, if that argument was allowed, then the employer could prevent you from seeking employment based on experience with them, since you wouldn't have that either if you didn't work there.
Well, I do have the right to determine ertain things about how my software is used. Specifically, I can license it any way I like. By default, you don't have the right to my stuff - I have to grant it.
Do it, but make it obvious - libertarian party (or Ben Stein, if you like) wins the election with 120% of the voters voting.
The process is broken - better to make it obvious than let them powers that be sweep it under the rug, because you know they will.
In a world where even PayPal can't get it right (and nobody cares) what does it matter?
Aside from their lack of care with your money, paypal gets a lot right - all their communication refers to paypal.com, not somerandomurl.com like a lot of real banks do. This single thing is probably worth way more than any fancy SSL hokum.
Wait, you want it to be verifiable after the fact? Go away and don't come back until you realize just how stupid that idea is. You don't really want someone being able to buy a vote.
And what chance do you have of getting most of the public to trust something like that?
You could store the vote in a database as a counterpart number, which is the voter number encrypted with the voter's public key.
Why would the average American have a public key?
What effects stick around? I know people who use pot, but I generally only find out when I see them smoking. It's no worse than what's already legal.