You don't own Lady Gaga's music just because you bought a CD that allows you to listen to it, so you can't transfer that property to another and you don't have a right to manipulate it however you want
Really? What law restricts me from selling my CDs now?
The purchase of the DVD only means that I own the right to watch Star Wars by means of the DVD on the intended playback device
Oh, so now the vendor of the DVD can limit to playing it on a device of their choice? By what law again?
You can't just go photocopy a Harry Potter book and give it to a friend either, incidentally
No, and the reason for that isn't some "rental" or "lease" agreement I implicitly signed when I bought (note the verb there - "bought") the content. It's due to a law of the land adding limits to what I may do with my possession in this specific case (that is, do not redistribute). The law adds a number of restrictions to what you may do with your possessions - you may not stab people with knives, for instance. This doesn't mean you don't own knives, or that the knife manufacturer somehow grants you a vegetable-chopping licence, and it doesn't mean that I don't own my content either.
"Hey I just bought a Star Wars DVD, get George Lucas on the phone because I would like to set up a deal whereby he pays me royalties for my ownership stake in the Star Wars franchise!" You don't own any of it.
Some strawmen just aren't even worth the trouble of lighting on fire.
I quite liked Moon is a Harsh Mistress/em of Heinlein's. Stand-alone, good read. Not as obviously pushing his sexual agenda as in some of his other books, although still quite present, obviously.
Honestly, McCaffrey's probably generally for younger readers. Her books are imaginative, but her character development and such are probably a bit shallow for more mature tastes. She's definitely on the softer side of sci-fi than Heinlein - which I don't mind, but some people only like the hard stuff.
Dragonsdawn is the first of the books chronologically, and Dragonflight the first in order of writing - choose whichever you wish, it works both ways. There are (semi) standalone books (Dolphins of Pern, the Harper Hall trilogy), but they generally all presuppose the readers have a general knowledge of the series.
And what life skills are you learning by posting on Slashdot? Shouldn't you be out working on your debating skills, instead of involved in an activity which, while it may be relaxing and enjoyable, doesn't serve to further equip you for life?
And yet, bookstores, music stores, and video stores all offer to sell me these products, not rent them to me (unless they're also in the actual rental business, of course).
rather you lease the content for private use
Oh, right. You mind showing me the lease I signed when I bought my last album? I guess I didn't buy that chocolate bar yesterday either, just "paid a fee to enjoy it". Should I expect cadbury to add a EULA to their bars, stating that, as I am only licensed to use it for immediate, personal consumption, I shouldn't bake with it under penalty of law?
Isn't it a little dubious to try to defend an economic system largely defined as markets free from regulation or control by claiming that its most common practice is "not implemented properly", aka regulated?
Well, it would be, if that's how capitalism is defined. It isn't, though. What you describe is closer to laissez-faire - which is a type of capitalism, but not the the definition of capitalism. The definition of capitalism, as far as any such beast exists, is concerned with private (as opposed to public) ownership of the means of production, and of the use of profit and competition (as opposed to force, or good-will) to motivate useful labour. Regulation, and the degree of such, varies throughout capitalistic models. It is almost never absent entirely - for instance, most capitalist models assume that the government has the power to enforce contracts, police industrial saboutage, assassination, and so forth.
And isn't by regulation of markets how we got to where we are now?
Yes - you got here by regulating the markets on the behalf of, and for the advantage of, the players in those markets, instead of for the advantage of the public. You had (and have) a weak regulator that was subsumed by the entities it was supposed to be regulating. Lack of regulation would have been better than this. Arguably, regulation in favour of the people would have been better still.
and they all do, in theory, but what matters are the real-world implementation
True, but you also can't judge a theory simply based on those who claim to practice it. Judging democracy by the standard of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for instance, is unlikely to give you an accurate estimate of the theory. Just because the US claims to be capitalistic, mouths capitalistic platitudes, and enforces those elements of capitalism that are beneficial to the corporations that fund the government doesn't make them a great representative of the theory.
Funny. I did find it on slashdot. Mind telling me what sacred cows it apparently slaughters? Looks like a whistleblower who embarrassed a previous government is now getting off the hook due to the opposition being in power.
No, she probably wouldn't have. Because a small boutique bakery can't scale linearly.
She might have been able to make a $2 profit on the first hundred orders, because her existing infrastructure could cope with that. If demand spikes really high though (like it did in this case), then she's forced to outlay - hire more staff, more ovens. bigger premises - just to fulfill orders for a one-time spike that is unlikely to ever occur again.
No, he, and you, are wrong. Capitalism only works the way you describe when it's not implemented properly (which is why the U.S. is so screwed up). According to capitalism, you are supposed to have capitalists and government as countervailing forces - a strong capitalist class, to promote efficiency, and a strong government to protect individuals. When the government collapses and sells out to the capitalist class, you get the US.
Because literary theory, with a special focus on post-WWII novels, has been my professional focus for the past thirty years, I've become somewhat picky.
Well, that's probably a large part of the problem. By and large, sci-fi (and especially old sci-fi) is defined by it's content (the ideas and concepts it develops), not by its style. If you're anything like me, what blew you away about Foundation wasn't its exquisite prose, but stuff like psychohistory, and the concepts behind it. I'm reading Doc Smith's Lensmen stuff at the moment - mostly out of curiosity. The writing style and pacing is so bad it's almost unreadable, but the ideas expressed, while not novel now, were greatly influential when they were written.
or does anyone else find it frustrating that/.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital? Seriously. If you just suggest that maybe, just maybe, that we as a society shouldn't allow Apple Computer to sit on 85 billion dollars then you're drowned out in a chorus of "It's THEIR money, let them spend it however they want!". But make it digital, and you've got the same people decrying the evil of buying the White Album for the 15th time.
No, those two views are perfectly harmonious. "It's THEIR money (they earnt it), let them spend it however they want" = "It's MY content (I bought it), let me use it however I want"
That's the problem with capitalism. It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit.
Not really. In a truly capitalistic environment, you'd see competitors pop up to cater to the niche markets. But since in this case the industry is running off of government-granted monopolies, it's not really capitalism - just greed, which is endemic in any economic system.
The efficiency of farming (yield value per area+inputs) is going to have to grow a lot as global population increases and gets richer
Not necessarily. Using the most modern farming techniques, we produce far more food than the population that grows it actually requires. The problem is, the areas that have the largest (and most quickly growing) populations, are the areas that use the least effective farming techniques.
Apart from stopping the wars that suck up their manpower, and pillage their crops, getting modern farming in widespread use in the third world is the big step to combating world hunger. And if the pattern is anything like what we've seen, once their standard of living is raised, they stop having as many children, and population will taper off. Much of the western world (US and Australia I know for sure) is currently at below-replacement levels of reproduction.
That's great, but I think we should push it further. Why not extend it to countries? Then Germany can go back to the innocent ideologies it argued in its youth, and erase them from history books. America can go and remove references to all the pesky slaughtering of indigenous inhabitants they did during their younger days. Why should there be any accountability for actions done in the past, now that those who did them are older and wiser?
When graphic designers started sticking "UX Designer" on their resumes, and birthing abominations. Even developer-designed UI's are better than that.
Note that actual UX designers, who understand interface design, human-computer interaction and all that jazz are awesome. It's just that for every one of those I've seen, I've seen fifty photoshop monkeys with padded CVs.
but that's simply something we're going to have to accept if we want planet earth to support so many humans
No, no its not.
Direct electrical cars are not the only way to proceed. And in car re-charging isn't even the only way to proceed with them. Swappable batteries, for instance. Ok, you might need a crane to change them, but even that's quicker than a recharge. Or you can use electrical power to produce a liquid fuel that's more easily distributed, whether that's hydrogen, or synthetic petroleum.
That just for once they'll manage to see the difference between global warming activists and the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine alarmists
Given that there's people in this very thread ignoring that disclaimer, and claiming that it must be global warming, I'm not sure there's a difference to be seen.
It has resulted in some pretty important stuff like auditing the Linux code for copyrighted stuff, keeping developers and contributors honest to the code
Meanwhile, it's proprietary competition has no such scrutiny required, and is even more likely to be able to hide such instances, as their source is not publicly available.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't own Lady Gaga's music just because you bought a CD that allows you to listen to it, so you can't transfer that property to another and you don't have a right to manipulate it however you want
Really? What law restricts me from selling my CDs now?
The purchase of the DVD only means that I own the right to watch Star Wars by means of the DVD on the intended playback device
Oh, so now the vendor of the DVD can limit to playing it on a device of their choice? By what law again?
You can't just go photocopy a Harry Potter book and give it to a friend either, incidentally
No, and the reason for that isn't some "rental" or "lease" agreement I implicitly signed when I bought (note the verb there - "bought") the content. It's due to a law of the land adding limits to what I may do with my possession in this specific case (that is, do not redistribute). The law adds a number of restrictions to what you may do with your possessions - you may not stab people with knives, for instance. This doesn't mean you don't own knives, or that the knife manufacturer somehow grants you a vegetable-chopping licence, and it doesn't mean that I don't own my content either.
"Hey I just bought a Star Wars DVD, get George Lucas on the phone because I would like to set up a deal whereby he pays me royalties for my ownership stake in the Star Wars franchise!" You don't own any of it.
Some strawmen just aren't even worth the trouble of lighting on fire.
I quite liked Moon is a Harsh Mistress/em of Heinlein's. Stand-alone, good read. Not as obviously pushing his sexual agenda as in some of his other books, although still quite present, obviously.
Honestly, McCaffrey's probably generally for younger readers. Her books are imaginative, but her character development and such are probably a bit shallow for more mature tastes. She's definitely on the softer side of sci-fi than Heinlein - which I don't mind, but some people only like the hard stuff.
Dragonsdawn is the first of the books chronologically, and Dragonflight the first in order of writing - choose whichever you wish, it works both ways. There are (semi) standalone books (Dolphins of Pern, the Harper Hall trilogy), but they generally all presuppose the readers have a general knowledge of the series.
And what life skills are you learning by posting on Slashdot? Shouldn't you be out working on your debating skills, instead of involved in an activity which, while it may be relaxing and enjoyable, doesn't serve to further equip you for life?
you don't buy music or books anymore
And yet, bookstores, music stores, and video stores all offer to sell me these products, not rent them to me (unless they're also in the actual rental business, of course).
rather you lease the content for private use
Oh, right. You mind showing me the lease I signed when I bought my last album? I guess I didn't buy that chocolate bar yesterday either, just "paid a fee to enjoy it". Should I expect cadbury to add a EULA to their bars, stating that, as I am only licensed to use it for immediate, personal consumption, I shouldn't bake with it under penalty of law?
Isn't it a little dubious to try to defend an economic system largely defined as markets free from regulation or control by claiming that its most common practice is "not implemented properly", aka regulated?
Well, it would be, if that's how capitalism is defined. It isn't, though. What you describe is closer to laissez-faire - which is a type of capitalism, but not the the definition of capitalism. The definition of capitalism, as far as any such beast exists, is concerned with private (as opposed to public) ownership of the means of production, and of the use of profit and competition (as opposed to force, or good-will) to motivate useful labour. Regulation, and the degree of such, varies throughout capitalistic models. It is almost never absent entirely - for instance, most capitalist models assume that the government has the power to enforce contracts, police industrial saboutage, assassination, and so forth.
And isn't by regulation of markets how we got to where we are now?
Yes - you got here by regulating the markets on the behalf of, and for the advantage of, the players in those markets, instead of for the advantage of the public. You had (and have) a weak regulator that was subsumed by the entities it was supposed to be regulating. Lack of regulation would have been better than this. Arguably, regulation in favour of the people would have been better still.
and they all do, in theory, but what matters are the real-world implementation
True, but you also can't judge a theory simply based on those who claim to practice it. Judging democracy by the standard of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for instance, is unlikely to give you an accurate estimate of the theory. Just because the US claims to be capitalistic, mouths capitalistic platitudes, and enforces those elements of capitalism that are beneficial to the corporations that fund the government doesn't make them a great representative of the theory.
Funny. I did find it on slashdot. Mind telling me what sacred cows it apparently slaughters? Looks like a whistleblower who embarrassed a previous government is now getting off the hook due to the opposition being in power.
No, she probably wouldn't have. Because a small boutique bakery can't scale linearly.
She might have been able to make a $2 profit on the first hundred orders, because her existing infrastructure could cope with that. If demand spikes really high though (like it did in this case), then she's forced to outlay - hire more staff, more ovens. bigger premises - just to fulfill orders for a one-time spike that is unlikely to ever occur again.
Sorry, I forgot for a second how as a non-US citizen, I have an obligation to correct your legally codified social injustices
Hey, they seem to believe the inverse - why not?
No, he, and you, are wrong. Capitalism only works the way you describe when it's not implemented properly (which is why the U.S. is so screwed up). According to capitalism, you are supposed to have capitalists and government as countervailing forces - a strong capitalist class, to promote efficiency, and a strong government to protect individuals. When the government collapses and sells out to the capitalist class, you get the US.
Just shut up with your damn wooshes, you're just making yourself look like a moron.
No, whoosh yourself. He's talking about the US, where they do cost that much, in parts.
Because literary theory, with a special focus on post-WWII novels, has been my professional focus for the past thirty years, I've become somewhat picky.
Well, that's probably a large part of the problem. By and large, sci-fi (and especially old sci-fi) is defined by it's content (the ideas and concepts it develops), not by its style. If you're anything like me, what blew you away about Foundation wasn't its exquisite prose, but stuff like psychohistory, and the concepts behind it. I'm reading Doc Smith's Lensmen stuff at the moment - mostly out of curiosity. The writing style and pacing is so bad it's almost unreadable, but the ideas expressed, while not novel now, were greatly influential when they were written.
or does anyone else find it frustrating that /.ers are in favor of unlimited property rights except when they go digital? Seriously. If you just suggest that maybe, just maybe, that we as a society shouldn't allow Apple Computer to sit on 85 billion dollars then you're drowned out in a chorus of "It's THEIR money, let them spend it however they want!". But make it digital, and you've got the same people decrying the evil of buying the White Album for the 15th time.
No, those two views are perfectly harmonious.
"It's THEIR money (they earnt it), let them spend it however they want" = "It's MY content (I bought it), let me use it however I want"
That's the problem with capitalism. It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit.
Not really. In a truly capitalistic environment, you'd see competitors pop up to cater to the niche markets. But since in this case the industry is running off of government-granted monopolies, it's not really capitalism - just greed, which is endemic in any economic system.
The efficiency of farming (yield value per area+inputs) is going to have to grow a lot as global population increases and gets richer
Not necessarily. Using the most modern farming techniques, we produce far more food than the population that grows it actually requires. The problem is, the areas that have the largest (and most quickly growing) populations, are the areas that use the least effective farming techniques.
Apart from stopping the wars that suck up their manpower, and pillage their crops, getting modern farming in widespread use in the third world is the big step to combating world hunger. And if the pattern is anything like what we've seen, once their standard of living is raised, they stop having as many children, and population will taper off. Much of the western world (US and Australia I know for sure) is currently at below-replacement levels of reproduction.
The internet is.
Stay off http, and google's virtually non-existent.
Yes. I was demonstrating that it was only a difference of scale, not of kind.
That's great, but I think we should push it further. Why not extend it to countries? Then Germany can go back to the innocent ideologies it argued in its youth, and erase them from history books. America can go and remove references to all the pesky slaughtering of indigenous inhabitants they did during their younger days. Why should there be any accountability for actions done in the past, now that those who did them are older and wiser?
When graphic designers started sticking "UX Designer" on their resumes, and birthing abominations. Even developer-designed UI's are better than that.
Note that actual UX designers, who understand interface design, human-computer interaction and all that jazz are awesome. It's just that for every one of those I've seen, I've seen fifty photoshop monkeys with padded CVs.
but that's simply something we're going to have to accept if we want planet earth to support so many humans
No, no its not.
Direct electrical cars are not the only way to proceed. And in car re-charging isn't even the only way to proceed with them. Swappable batteries, for instance. Ok, you might need a crane to change them, but even that's quicker than a recharge. Or you can use electrical power to produce a liquid fuel that's more easily distributed, whether that's hydrogen, or synthetic petroleum.
That just for once they'll manage to see the difference between global warming activists and the anti-cellphone, anti-vaccine alarmists
Given that there's people in this very thread ignoring that disclaimer, and claiming that it must be global warming, I'm not sure there's a difference to be seen.
It has resulted in some pretty important stuff like auditing the Linux code for copyrighted stuff, keeping developers and contributors honest to the code
Meanwhile, it's proprietary competition has no such scrutiny required, and is even more likely to be able to hide such instances, as their source is not publicly available.
I'm struggling to see the bad in that. It just looks like your run-of-the-mill speeding fine to me.
What's the difference in this case?
Good thing the 300 million minutes of Angry Birds daily playing time around the world aren't being wasted or anything.
Ah, of course. The summary wouldn't be complete without a snide dig at the mainstream. Cause geeks would never waste time playing a game after all.