As far as I'm concerned, if it allows you to do something cheaper, faster, or something that you simply couldn't do before, compensation is due its owner.
You cannot own an idea. One major difference between 'intellectual property' and physical property is that ideas have unlimited use; Everyone in the world can think about something all they want without preventing others from doing the same, causing wear, etc. If physical goods had these characteristics, we would have no justification for property either. The reason for property rights is that multiple people cannot use it at once, and thus using someone else's property without permission reduces their rights to it. Physical objects cannot benefit everyone, so they must be owned to provide any benefit other than squabbles as to who's turn it is to use it.
If you don't like the terms, do something else.
Why? Ideas often are developed independently. For example, Newton developed calculus, but didnt publish it. A few years later Liebniz developed it and published it. If I come up with an idea, just because you thought of it first should not give you a right to force my to accept your conditions to use my own thoughts.
These things are subject to the same market forces as anything else- if its owner wants to make money, he will balance market demand with the price he charges.
They are subject to the same market forces as monopolies, not competitive goods. DeBeers for instance must balance market demand with the price it charges. If it decided to charge 1 billion dollars for a small diamond, no one would buy it, because they have the choice to do without. However they can sell a diamond that in a competitive market would be worth well under a dollar for a thousand dollars. Just because they are subject to some market forces does not mean they do not have a monopoly. Intellectual property is a monopoly on an idea, which is, unlike physical property, a true monopoly in the sense that their are no competitors. A physical object is for all practical purposes the same as another object of the same design, except that they are different objects, and thus most of the time different people's property. Intellectual property laws on the other hand prevent copying, meaning in the analogy between physical and intellectual property, that another object of the same design cannot be made without the owners permission.
If you don't want to pay simply because you can copy it, you are engaging in theft- it's no different than any other good in the marketplace.
It is different; you cannot take that particular copy, but there is no law preventing you from making copies of physical objects, and if it were as easy as it is with ideas, we would all be living like kings, and anyone who suggested it was morally wrong would be laughed at or even thrown in an asylum.
Its actually ontopic; the parent was about abandoning blogs, and most of the comments attached to this story are about people putting useless everyday events in their blogs.
And the government would do the same for me, I just haven't been smart or lucky enough to take advantage of those particular benefits. The same people that protect Gates' stuff are the same people who protect my stuff and your stuff.
They are protecting more stuff, just as they are taking more stuff.
The only lesson that you teach your children by selling drugs is that your drugs & money are more important to you than they are.
That's a strawman argument; He said absolutely nothing that vaguely relates to the importance of kids, except that he would teach them to think for themselves, which IMO is a good thing.
Not quite; the no soliciting signs are entirely different, they are legally valid not because of some 'right to be left alone,' but because of property rights; they do not have permission, and were expressly told that they do not, to be on your property if they intend to sell you something. If they do you can sue them for tresspassing.
So in a parallel vein, if you "post your intention to be left alone on the phone" in a public place, specifically signing up for this "do-not-call list," that it carries the same intent and it should therefore carry the same weight
No the intent alone does not make it valid. If I sell you something I own, that is allowed. If I sell you something you own, and refuse to let you have it if you don't pay me, that is illegal. In both cases my intent is to get money, so should the sales be just as valid? The difference is that while I have the right to not let you use something I own, just as you have the right to not let others on your property, I do not have the right to refuse to allow you to use your property, just as you do not have the right to make others not call you.
I recall hearing about a SCOTUS decision at the beginning of the 20th century dealing with that. The decision was the reason an amendment was needed for prohibition.
The only ways to get rid of corruption are to give absolute power, so noone has anything to offer, and to limit the power to the point that they have nothing to offer to those who can bribe them. The problems with the former are obvious; the problems with the latter are that the limits are hard to enforce, and erode over time, as people forget why those limitations were there in the first place.
There are 2 problems with software copyrights that should have been taken into account when copyrights were extended to cover software. The first is that copyright infringement is hard to prove against closed source software without being guilty yourself. With a book for instance you can buy a copy and see if what you wrote is in there.
With software, the source is not the product, the binary is. You can't compare the binary as easily, especially since different compile options will lead to differently-optimized binaries. And you can't compare the source without having an illegal copy of it. This inequality means closed sourve can rip off open source at will, but it does not work the other way around.
The second problem is that copyrights on software do not even serve the purpose given for copyrights. When the software passes into the public domain, unless the source was leaked, people cannot build on it to make greater software.
But your speech is a superposition of clicking noises, as any continuous sound wave(that is one that does not involve teleporting particles, or infinite forces) can be expressed as a superposition of sound waves that on their own would be clicking sounds.
Already discussed:
[X] Will break mailing lists
[X] Will be forged by spammers
I agree with the first point, but if it is implemented properly it will be difficult to forge. The server could for instance generate two medium sized prime numbers(the size would be chosen such that factoring it would take 10 minutes on an average computer), multiply them, and send the result to the client. The client then must factor it, which is a much more complicated process, and send the two primes back to the server. It can't be forged, as the server knows the proper result ahead of time, while the client must actually solve the problem.
I can't speak for him, but I am against the GPL as well as copyright in general. However, IMO proprietary software is even worse, as it takes away more rights; At least the GPL allows you to modify it and to use it within an organisation any any way you want, and to redistribute it under the GPL as long as you provide the source code, whereas proprietary software takes away all of those rights as well.
Greed is part of human nature. in a communist society for instance, whoever distributes the rations will probably take a much larger amount for himself. The strength in capitalism lies in the fact that it uses greed for good. The problem here, however is that the legislators, who have the power to give benefits to companies, and create monopolies, or otherwise corrode the foundations of capitalism, are being bribed by those companies to do exactly that. The solution here is more of a political solution than an economic one.
There are two ways to prevent corruption, abolute power and limited power. Absolute power prevents corruption, because if you try to bribe the dictator, he can have you killed and all your stuff taken instead of giving you what you want. Limited power works because the company gains no benefit in bribing a politician who does not have the power to benefit them. Of course absolute power is even less desirable, so the solution to this problem is to prevent the legislators from making regulations or otherwise interfering with the capitalistic free-market economy. What we need is true capitalism rather than this pseudo-capitalist B$.
Slashdot Mirror
unless you are a large corporation.
no the super in superstring theory comes from its prediction of supersymmetry.
why not read the wikipedia article about it?
If you didn't comment your code, they will have to rehire you, or spend even more money either rewriting it or figuring it out.
You cannot own an idea. One major difference between 'intellectual property' and physical property is that ideas have unlimited use; Everyone in the world can think about something all they want without preventing others from doing the same, causing wear, etc. If physical goods had these characteristics, we would have no justification for property either. The reason for property rights is that multiple people cannot use it at once, and thus using someone else's property without permission reduces their rights to it. Physical objects cannot benefit everyone, so they must be owned to provide any benefit other than squabbles as to who's turn it is to use it.
If you don't like the terms, do something else.
Why? Ideas often are developed independently. For example, Newton developed calculus, but didnt publish it. A few years later Liebniz developed it and published it. If I come up with an idea, just because you thought of it first should not give you a right to force my to accept your conditions to use my own thoughts.
These things are subject to the same market forces as anything else- if its owner wants to make money, he will balance market demand with the price he charges.
They are subject to the same market forces as monopolies, not competitive goods. DeBeers for instance must balance market demand with the price it charges. If it decided to charge 1 billion dollars for a small diamond, no one would buy it, because they have the choice to do without. However they can sell a diamond that in a competitive market would be worth well under a dollar for a thousand dollars. Just because they are subject to some market forces does not mean they do not have a monopoly. Intellectual property is a monopoly on an idea, which is, unlike physical property, a true monopoly in the sense that their are no competitors. A physical object is for all practical purposes the same as another object of the same design, except that they are different objects, and thus most of the time different people's property. Intellectual property laws on the other hand prevent copying, meaning in the analogy between physical and intellectual property, that another object of the same design cannot be made without the owners permission.
If you don't want to pay simply because you can copy it, you are engaging in theft- it's no different than any other good in the marketplace.
It is different; you cannot take that particular copy, but there is no law preventing you from making copies of physical objects, and if it were as easy as it is with ideas, we would all be living like kings, and anyone who suggested it was morally wrong would be laughed at or even thrown in an asylum.
Its actually ontopic; the parent was about abandoning blogs, and most of the comments attached to this story are about people putting useless everyday events in their blogs.
Since when do police hang out on Kazaa?
They are protecting more stuff, just as they are taking more stuff.
better yet get rid of HTML email, and there will be no images there, it will be hard to get it past filters, and there will be less email worms.
That's a strawman argument; He said absolutely nothing that vaguely relates to the importance of kids, except that he would teach them to think for themselves, which IMO is a good thing.
You are making the assumption, that not only is he opposed to drug laws, but that he also supports socialized healthcare, etc.
So in a parallel vein, if you "post your intention to be left alone on the phone" in a public place, specifically signing up for this "do-not-call list," that it carries the same intent and it should therefore carry the same weight
No the intent alone does not make it valid. If I sell you something I own, that is allowed. If I sell you something you own, and refuse to let you have it if you don't pay me, that is illegal. In both cases my intent is to get money, so should the sales be just as valid? The difference is that while I have the right to not let you use something I own, just as you have the right to not let others on your property, I do not have the right to refuse to allow you to use your property, just as you do not have the right to make others not call you.
Calling you allows them to speak to you, it doesnt force you to listen; after all you can always hang up.
He's a singer, who these daysisknown mainly for accusations that he molests children.
I recall hearing about a SCOTUS decision at the beginning of the 20th century dealing with that. The decision was the reason an amendment was needed for prohibition.
The only ways to get rid of corruption are to give absolute power, so noone has anything to offer, and to limit the power to the point that they have nothing to offer to those who can bribe them. The problems with the former are obvious; the problems with the latter are that the limits are hard to enforce, and erode over time, as people forget why those limitations were there in the first place.
With software, the source is not the product, the binary is. You can't compare the binary as easily, especially since different compile options will lead to differently-optimized binaries. And you can't compare the source without having an illegal copy of it. This inequality means closed sourve can rip off open source at will, but it does not work the other way around.
The second problem is that copyrights on software do not even serve the purpose given for copyrights. When the software passes into the public domain, unless the source was leaked, people cannot build on it to make greater software.
I post as an AC fairly often, but I can moderate every once in a while
It is gone. If you don't believe me open it in lynx or telnet, neither of which display the image.
But what if the government makes it illegal to use non-trusted hardware?
What is Step 7?
But your speech is a superposition of clicking noises, as any continuous sound wave(that is one that does not involve teleporting particles, or infinite forces) can be expressed as a superposition of sound waves that on their own would be clicking sounds.
I agree with the first point, but if it is implemented properly it will be difficult to forge. The server could for instance generate two medium sized prime numbers(the size would be chosen such that factoring it would take 10 minutes on an average computer), multiply them, and send the result to the client. The client then must factor it, which is a much more complicated process, and send the two primes back to the server. It can't be forged, as the server knows the proper result ahead of time, while the client must actually solve the problem.
I can't speak for him, but I am against the GPL as well as copyright in general. However, IMO proprietary software is even worse, as it takes away more rights; At least the GPL allows you to modify it and to use it within an organisation any any way you want, and to redistribute it under the GPL as long as you provide the source code, whereas proprietary software takes away all of those rights as well.
There are two ways to prevent corruption, abolute power and limited power. Absolute power prevents corruption, because if you try to bribe the dictator, he can have you killed and all your stuff taken instead of giving you what you want. Limited power works because the company gains no benefit in bribing a politician who does not have the power to benefit them. Of course absolute power is even less desirable, so the solution to this problem is to prevent the legislators from making regulations or otherwise interfering with the capitalistic free-market economy. What we need is true capitalism rather than this pseudo-capitalist B$.