Fumo is awesome. He also held up a dune-building project where he has a beach house in Margate, NJ. Sandy did a lot more damage then it would have without Mr. Fumo's influence. So he has the distinction of crapping all over at least two states.
Anyway, I'm disappointed that the article pictured the wrong temple and I suspect that it might have been intentional.
Agreed. Also buried in the article: the site has been very thoroughly worked over by archeologists over the decades, and there are archeologists who see this as an opportunity to study the lower layers that would have been impossible before.
So is this bad? I'd certainly say so. But in reality, a degraded monument not in current use was destroyed. The biggest shame in my mind is that the archeologists weren't given the opportunity to disassemble it. I certainly hope future civilizations don't spend too much time arguing over the ruins of the corner church on my street.
My concern with that amendment is that I don't understand how it protects newspapers and other traditional media outlets. It seems like the government could go after the free press using that amendment.
While we're monkeying around with corporate personage, I think we should probably reform the concept of limited liability. Maybe not for passive investors, but certainly for the people actively making decisions.
Most people involved in IP don't consider them "pretend" property.
I actually have to amend my last remarks. I don't think that they are wrong - they are operating within their own reality. However, their reality is a fabrication of the government. Most of us get a paycheck from a corporation, and the corporation feels very real to us - but it too is a fabrication of law.
And it may be true that IP is not exactly the same kind of property as land, but land is not the same kind of property as a loan on a balancesheet, or a contract, or a person's body.
Exactly. Contract law is probably the oldest form of law we have, but it still isn't real property. A person's body is probably the most basic form of property, but land is pretty universally defended - with or without a government's help.
Musicians and programmers could, in a world without governments, still create the concept of IP, by refusing to release their products without insisting on contracts that stipulate the terms of further usage and distribution, just as landowners and blacksmiths would.
No, they can't. Because once the song is "out there", it can be sung by people with no such contract. The best that they can do to control a work is keep it to themselves.
Well, I don't know what to say to those people, other than I think they are completely wrong! You can't own an idea, unless the government says you can.
Yes, it certainly stretches the Libertarian philosophy to include imaginary things as "property". Once you grant the ability of the government to invent economic incentives and assign the word "property" to them (as opposed to just settling property disputes), you kind of give up on any pretense that you can limit the government's scope along ideological lines.
In my middle age, I've taken to eating all sorts of things that used to disgust me. Once you pop a snail out of it's shell and suck it down, how bad could a grasshopper be? Goose liver foi gras is disturbing in concept and morality, yet it can be quite tasty. I actually prefer fish prepared whole now, whereas I used to want boneless filets only. And really, is there any insect more horrifying in appearance than a crab or lobster?
I'm not defending IP law - I think that the terms are way too long and the bar on what qualifies is way too low. I think a guy should be able to plant seeds, no matter the source or his intentions. With that said, this case isn't exactly confusing. At least, no more confusing than my car example. IP law in general is terrifyingly unclear.
Property rights are indeed critical to libertarian ideals.
Pretend property rights are not. More to the point, government interference in commerce is frowned upon, and aside from the concept of the corporation I have a hard time thinking of a larger government regulation than IP law.
I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead.
Because the elevator was selling a legal product. To extend your car analogy, the cars were not stolen.
Then the farmer planted the seeds, thus "copying" the formerly legal goods. Back to the car analogy, this is like buying a Chevy from a dealer, and then copying and selling the copies. It all makes sense in the weird realm of IP law.
Agreed on the "disappearing" thing. We watched half a movie, came back the next day to finish it and it was gone! Still, my queue is growing, not shrinking.
I can't imagine running out of stuff to see on Netflix, but then I only watch about a half hour or so of TV a day. Don't get me wrong, I still waste brain cells via internet instead of the boob tube... it's just that I find Netflix to be cavernous in terms of content.
Slashdot Mirror
Fumo is awesome. He also held up a dune-building project where he has a beach house in Margate, NJ. Sandy did a lot more damage then it would have without Mr. Fumo's influence. So he has the distinction of crapping all over at least two states.
Just letting you know that your opinions aren't universal.
M is a letter in many alphabets.
Anyway, I'm disappointed that the article pictured the wrong temple and I suspect that it might have been intentional.
Agreed. Also buried in the article: the site has been very thoroughly worked over by archeologists over the decades, and there are archeologists who see this as an opportunity to study the lower layers that would have been impossible before.
So is this bad? I'd certainly say so. But in reality, a degraded monument not in current use was destroyed. The biggest shame in my mind is that the archeologists weren't given the opportunity to disassemble it. I certainly hope future civilizations don't spend too much time arguing over the ruins of the corner church on my street.
I'll see your moral firebombing and raise you a moral atom bombing.
Personally, I frequently get bombed in the name of morality.
Yes, the US is so universally hated that our president received the Nobel Peace Prize.
OR, I could go to the millions of other places I haven't been and just not worry about the whole violence thing.
My concern with that amendment is that I don't understand how it protects newspapers and other traditional media outlets. It seems like the government could go after the free press using that amendment.
While we're monkeying around with corporate personage, I think we should probably reform the concept of limited liability. Maybe not for passive investors, but certainly for the people actively making decisions.
I think by New York or New Jersey standards, Southern corruption is quaint and gentlemanly.
Most people involved in IP don't consider them "pretend" property.
I actually have to amend my last remarks. I don't think that they are wrong - they are operating within their own reality. However, their reality is a fabrication of the government. Most of us get a paycheck from a corporation, and the corporation feels very real to us - but it too is a fabrication of law.
And it may be true that IP is not exactly the same kind of property as land, but land is not the same kind of property as a loan on a balancesheet, or a contract, or a person's body.
Exactly. Contract law is probably the oldest form of law we have, but it still isn't real property. A person's body is probably the most basic form of property, but land is pretty universally defended - with or without a government's help.
Musicians and programmers could, in a world without governments, still create the concept of IP, by refusing to release their products without insisting on contracts that stipulate the terms of further usage and distribution, just as landowners and blacksmiths would.
No, they can't. Because once the song is "out there", it can be sung by people with no such contract. The best that they can do to control a work is keep it to themselves.
Well, I don't know what to say to those people, other than I think they are completely wrong! You can't own an idea, unless the government says you can.
Yes, it certainly stretches the Libertarian philosophy to include imaginary things as "property". Once you grant the ability of the government to invent economic incentives and assign the word "property" to them (as opposed to just settling property disputes), you kind of give up on any pretense that you can limit the government's scope along ideological lines.
In my middle age, I've taken to eating all sorts of things that used to disgust me. Once you pop a snail out of it's shell and suck it down, how bad could a grasshopper be? Goose liver foi gras is disturbing in concept and morality, yet it can be quite tasty. I actually prefer fish prepared whole now, whereas I used to want boneless filets only. And really, is there any insect more horrifying in appearance than a crab or lobster?
The one place I haven't been able to go is native in the Philippines.
I'm not defending IP law - I think that the terms are way too long and the bar on what qualifies is way too low. I think a guy should be able to plant seeds, no matter the source or his intentions. With that said, this case isn't exactly confusing. At least, no more confusing than my car example. IP law in general is terrifyingly unclear.
Property rights are indeed critical to libertarian ideals.
Pretend property rights are not. More to the point, government interference in commerce is frowned upon, and aside from the concept of the corporation I have a hard time thinking of a larger government regulation than IP law.
In libertarian utopia, there probably wouldn't be IP law.
I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead.
Because the elevator was selling a legal product. To extend your car analogy, the cars were not stolen.
Then the farmer planted the seeds, thus "copying" the formerly legal goods. Back to the car analogy, this is like buying a Chevy from a dealer, and then copying and selling the copies. It all makes sense in the weird realm of IP law.
This is not new - this is why people flocked to the cities from the rural areas in the first place.
Private pirate parties!
Oh man, private parties! I'm never invited to those!
This was a nuclear weapons facility - the economics were not much of a consideration.
Agreed on the "disappearing" thing. We watched half a movie, came back the next day to finish it and it was gone! Still, my queue is growing, not shrinking.
He learned that from the British.
I can't imagine running out of stuff to see on Netflix, but then I only watch about a half hour or so of TV a day. Don't get me wrong, I still waste brain cells via internet instead of the boob tube... it's just that I find Netflix to be cavernous in terms of content.