In Common Lisp, the first form in the body of a function is the documentation string. (And since strings evaluate to themselves, it's ignored, unless it's the only form)
(defun foo_up (x y)
"This completely foos up x and y."
(+ (* x y) (/y x) (sqrt (- 2 x))))
Since code is represented as data (a tree) in lisp, it's easy to parse the doc string out of the function definition.
You just need a versioning system that knows S-expressions.
Thank you. I'd vote for going way back, and calling intellectual property "thoughts". All ideas, just like any other thoughts, are the result of things that you've seen, heard, or otherwise sensed in your lifetime.
What right do we have to stop other people from using what they've thought of, whether they thought of it independently (after it was patented), or unconsciously / consciously took ideas from other sources?
Sprawl can be discouraged by shifting taxes from property to land! Just think about it, would you personally want a large chunk of land if you had to pay taxes on the area of land you own instead of your house?
If you're against wasteful use of land, read up on the LVT. And if you think it's a good idea, let your elected officials know. Otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Simple solution to this, is to tax land value rather than property value. It encourages efficient use of land, since one is taxed the same for having a big house for one family or an apartment that houses many people.
It seems like radio frequencies could theoretically be compared to land, in that they're basically fixed.
Would it be feasible for the govt. to hold an auction, and sell these frequencies to the highest bidder, who is then responsible for managing them or "renting" them out to tv stations? I'm sure broadcasters would be against this, probably.
Though, what are broadcasters paying for broadcasting rights now? Is it more or less than fair market value?
However, it seems to me that the ultimate solution would be to allow any company to fire anyone for being themselves. You want to fire that guy because he's gay? Fine. You want to fire that Christian woman because she's Christian and a woman? Fine.
Companies with racist practices will end up losing some good people, and those people will be hired gladly by other companies who simply want good quality people. Racism ends up shooting itself in the foot. If you've got qualifications, there are plenty of companies out there that will hire you.
If the state forces religions (mainly the Catholic Church) to recognize gay marriage, then the freedoms of religion of Catholics is limited.
The problem with marriage is that it is very closely tied to both religion and state. I am against religions being forced to recognize gay marriage, but the state should not deny gay couples the advantages it gives married couples
"Gay marriage" takes people's freedom away if and only if you mean "gay marriage" as defined by religion, but the problem is that can't be separated from the state's definition
Actually, I'm against any kind of government/tax benefits for anything, because I think government is way too big in the first place. But that's beside the point.
Anything that is intended to "protect" minorities is submitting to them. Minorities should only be protected exactly as everyone is protected, and majorities should have no rights above minorities.
So basically, you can't be "protecting" one group specially without taking freedoms away from another. That's just the way it is. Try to think of a situation where that doesn't apply.
No one is PURELY greedy or PURELY philanthropic. But it's much better to rely on people being greedy and be pleasantly surprised, than to structure society based on philanthropy and have it collapse due to greed.
GPL is not the most free license out there (in terms of free speech). The BSD license takes that prize.
However, if your goal is that your code always remain free (as in beer) then GPL is for you.
If your goal is that people who use your code be as unfettered as possible, then BSD is for you.
You are absolutely correct, though. It gets my goat when people turn to marxism because they think capitalism is about the few rich exporting the many working class. In a capitalist society, money is not zero-sum. Money (value) can be created and destroyed. Power, however, is zero-sum.
I'd argue that the GPL is communist, while the BSD (or MIT) license is libertarian.
GPL says "No way in hell you can ever make a profit from this" while BSD license says "Do whatever you want with it." One assures code will always be free (as in beer), other assures the people who use it will always have freedom (as in speech).
Which one you use depends on the result you want. I'm trying not to inject my bias into this, though I think I've already failed.
Yes, I agree with you halfway. But I'm not sure how that applies to what I said about copyrights.
Walmart can be in the "asshole" category for hiring illegal immigrants or treating their employees poorly. However, I believe both of those practices would be discouraged by abolishing minimum wage laws, allowing free immigration, and reducing taxes to allow fair competition for the labor market.
Back to my last post, though: does walmart engage in any kind of copyright infringement or "intellectual property rights" violations? I didn't say boycotts are the solution to what Walmart does, but rather to copying. It's not necessary to completely eliminate the ass-market, because there are enough people who are willing to support original creators that we don't need laws to protect them. Every such law always gets used by the power-hungry (ie, SCO) to take from those who don't care as much about power.
Some authors even make money selling books that they themselves allow people to download for free! We don't need to make more people buy from good authors. If someone's product is not selling, it's probably because it sucks, not because it's copied. Which some would say is the situation with the MPAA and RIAA.
I think their problem is with people all along the chain leaking, and if they want to prevent leaks they'd have to find out which theaters are leaking and stop selling to them. But that, of course, is not as profitable/cost effective as using the government to punish/scare people into submission - which is only possible when government gets out of control.
I am a classical liberal. I also want to end Medicare and SS. I think there should be no tax on income whatsoever. I think there should be no tax on anything man produces, because any such tax discourages man from producing.
Instead, I think there should only be a tax on land. Land cannot be created, and taxing it rather than property (as in houses or buildings) does not discourage development, but rather encourages it. No one would want to own land that they do not use to make profit. Land should be taxed based on the free market value of that land.
Now THAT's a simple tax.
I want to end public schools. Time and time again, history has shown that the government CANNOT do things as efficiently or as well as private enterprise.
I think the government should spend $0 a year on basic research, for the same reason as above. That money (which comes from tax dollars) could be instead invested (by citizens, of their own free will) into private companies and universities who do research.
Remember folks, if people won't pay money for it, how can you argue that it benefits society? IT DOESN'T. You can only argue that you know better than other people what is best for them.
To say that Bush lied, you must have proof that he knew what he was saying was wrong, at the time he said it, with the intent to mislead others.
While may have said things that later turned out to be false, that does NOT necessarily mean that he lied, and by asserting that he lied when you do not know that for sure, YOU are being misleading.
If he believed that he was telling the truth, he did not lie, he was simply wrong. If I'm terrible at math and I say 10 + 10 = 30, according to my best calculation, then I'm not lying, I'm simply wrong.
Please do not corrupt the meaning of the word "lie".
Well, all that shows is that digital rights boils down what you just said. The meaning of theft / intellectual property / property in general is the main problem that people are discussing, because its the only problem. If everyone agreed on this, there'd be no debate at all.
I'm against copyright laws. Wait a second, hear me out.
The reason I believe so is that when one copies a work, this does not remove anything from the original work. Yes, you could be hurting the creator's ability to make money on his/her works, but let's take a look at this.
Let's say you find some genius's play script, and you copy it and say you wrote it, and sell it to a Broadway company, who produces it. You're an asshole. But do we really need a law to punish people who do so?
Imagine a libertarian society where this happens.
You sell the play and make some cash. Then, the original author says, "Hey! I wrote that, not you, jerk!" People start to find out you're an asshole and stop associating with you. They don't let you near things that they create, and they stop buying copied works from you. This happens whether you're a person or a corporation.
The creators learn which producers are good about protecting their works, and only sell to them. They learn to make good contracts and protect themselves before showing anyone their works. Thus, copyright is protected by normal contract law, and the legal system is that much simpler.
And you're sitting there, ostracized, because you're an ass. And rightfully so.
Besides, isn't free software based on contracts? People don't need copyrights, just licenses like the GPL or BDS license to protect their work. Yes, you can delete the license and say it's yours, but the truth is hard to hide.
Except that they can't form a monopoly. Monopolies are just about always government granted in one way or another. Many large companies have monopoly power because the income tax smacks down on new and small companies. Others are explicit monopolies, like the Tennessee Valley Authority.
You're trying to explain what would happen under a libertarian government using the rules of our non-libertarian government. Libertarian capitalism is survival of the fittest, not the largest and most well-connected like it is now.
And thus, the RIAA and MPAA would be avoided in favor of non-draconian music and movie companies, and would soon change their policies or go out of business.
By the way, this logical error is called a false dichotomy - ignoring all but two possibilities in a multitude.
Corporations cannot have power except through corruption in government. They can do their best to deceive and spread FUD, but when word gets around, they won't stay in business unless the government helps them out. If google decides what your best interests are, you stop using them, but if other people vote on what your best interests are, you get things like prohibition of alcohol, smoking in bars (private businesses!), and the war on drugs.
And who says profit is a bad thing? EVERYONE is motivated by profit, whether monetary or spiritual or whatever. Do you think people would give charity without getting good feelings inside (or negating bad feelings of guilt)? We're higher level animals, but evolution favors those who do things in their own interests.
I agree, though, free market competition is the way to go. Right now google is making the best product by far, and so they dominate - for now. But we shouldn't rule out the possibility of someone else surpassing them in the future.
Compared to the early US, we are socialistic. I use "socialism" to mean that the government is involved in wealth redistribution. For example, agricultural subsidies, welfare, the education system, medicare, social security. Perhaps we define socialism differently? I see 35% corporate taxes on the website you cited, and high corporate taxes decrease wages and employment. Our taxes aren't quite as high as many socialist states, but that they're even on the same order of magnitude says something.
We've got huge spending on education - it just doesn't work. That's why our public schools generally suck. Healthcare isn't as much of a priority (thank God) but it's getting there. You can get expensive care, but it costs you, which is how it should be. I don't think it should be as expensive as it is; unfortunately medical regulations all over the place drive the price up.
I do agree that according to Wikipedia, we fit one of the definitions of facism: Corporatism. But not the other four (maybe a little propaganda, but it's getting better thanks to bloggers and such):
exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
engages in severe economic and social regimentation
implements totalitarianism
And finally, I agree that the amount we spend on the military is ridiculous. For what we spend, we could have our borders completely sealed to all but well-checked legal immigration. I'm not against immigration, just illegal immigration.
Isn't it amazing what a waste of money our government is? No politician would ever consider actually NOT SPENDING money they don't need. Tax freedom day falls on April 17 this year (after which, proportionally, you will spend the rest of the year working for yourself rather than the government).
We went to war with Britain over 5% taxes. Today, we're practically a socialist country. Ever wonder why the IRS takes your money automatically and invisibly? We'd never support such ridiculous taxes if we had to send them a check every month.
What scares me more than this is more subtle and insidious forms of censorship, i.e., the McCain-Feingold act, or the Fairness Doctrine (sounds Orwellian, huh?) These attack free speech indirectly by hitting people's pocketbooks.
The McCain-Feingold act really hurts third party candidates, to whom publicity is very expensive. Dems and Reps already have all the publicity they need, but if you're coming in from the side, you'd better have a lot of financial support. This act stop that support and effectively chokes out all but the two major parties (big surprise it's a bi-partisan law, huh?)
Then, there's the fairness doctrine. It makes radio stations devote equal time to both sides of every issue. Therefore, a liberal talk radio show would have to give equal air time to conservative hosts, and vice versa. Obviously, if a station is predominantly liberal or conservative, it will lose viewers and thus advertising dollars. Since conservative talk radio stations are more common than progressive ones, you will see Hillary Clinton support this act because it hurts them.
People have a view of censorship that the men in uniforms will swoop down on you if you say or write the wrong thing, but hitting peoples' wallets is far easier, more subtle, and less likely to be resisted.
Posting someone's private information makes you an a$$hole. It shouldn't automatically make you a criminal, just sueable by the offended party.
The problem with privacy laws is, what happens when the "data" is something like Enron's accounting practices? It should only be illegal to post data that was acquired illegally.
If a blogger posts someone home address and tells people to harrass him, anyone who does so should be responsible for his own actions. I can run through the streets yelling "Lie, cheat, and steal!" but that's not a crime except for possibly disturbing the peace.
Blackmail, however, does make you a criminal. No matter what you threaten.
Slashdot Mirror
You just need a versioning system that knows S-expressions.
What right do we have to stop other people from using what they've thought of, whether they thought of it independently (after it was patented), or unconsciously / consciously took ideas from other sources?
"A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys are smart enough to have strong political opinions," Roberto Preatoni, Zone-H founder, told Reuters on Monday.
Since when did intelligence become a prerequisite for having strong political opinions?
If you're against wasteful use of land, read up on the LVT. And if you think it's a good idea, let your elected officials know. Otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself.
The effects of Land Value Taxation
wikipedia definition
Effects of Land Value Taxation
Would it be feasible for the govt. to hold an auction, and sell these frequencies to the highest bidder, who is then responsible for managing them or "renting" them out to tv stations? I'm sure broadcasters would be against this, probably.
Though, what are broadcasters paying for broadcasting rights now? Is it more or less than fair market value?
However, it seems to me that the ultimate solution would be to allow any company to fire anyone for being themselves. You want to fire that guy because he's gay? Fine. You want to fire that Christian woman because she's Christian and a woman? Fine.
Companies with racist practices will end up losing some good people, and those people will be hired gladly by other companies who simply want good quality people. Racism ends up shooting itself in the foot. If you've got qualifications, there are plenty of companies out there that will hire you.
The problem with marriage is that it is very closely tied to both religion and state. I am against religions being forced to recognize gay marriage, but the state should not deny gay couples the advantages it gives married couples
"Gay marriage" takes people's freedom away if and only if you mean "gay marriage" as defined by religion, but the problem is that can't be separated from the state's definition
Actually, I'm against any kind of government/tax benefits for anything, because I think government is way too big in the first place. But that's beside the point.
So basically, you can't be "protecting" one group specially without taking freedoms away from another. That's just the way it is. Try to think of a situation where that doesn't apply.
No one is PURELY greedy or PURELY philanthropic. But it's much better to rely on people being greedy and be pleasantly surprised, than to structure society based on philanthropy and have it collapse due to greed.
However, if your goal is that your code always remain free (as in beer) then GPL is for you.
If your goal is that people who use your code be as unfettered as possible, then BSD is for you.
You are absolutely correct, though. It gets my goat when people turn to marxism because they think capitalism is about the few rich exporting the many working class. In a capitalist society, money is not zero-sum. Money (value) can be created and destroyed. Power, however, is zero-sum.
GPL says "No way in hell you can ever make a profit from this" while BSD license says "Do whatever you want with it." One assures code will always be free (as in beer), other assures the people who use it will always have freedom (as in speech).
Which one you use depends on the result you want. I'm trying not to inject my bias into this, though I think I've already failed.
Walmart can be in the "asshole" category for hiring illegal immigrants or treating their employees poorly. However, I believe both of those practices would be discouraged by abolishing minimum wage laws, allowing free immigration, and reducing taxes to allow fair competition for the labor market.
Back to my last post, though: does walmart engage in any kind of copyright infringement or "intellectual property rights" violations? I didn't say boycotts are the solution to what Walmart does, but rather to copying. It's not necessary to completely eliminate the ass-market, because there are enough people who are willing to support original creators that we don't need laws to protect them. Every such law always gets used by the power-hungry (ie, SCO) to take from those who don't care as much about power.
Some authors even make money selling books that they themselves allow people to download for free! We don't need to make more people buy from good authors. If someone's product is not selling, it's probably because it sucks, not because it's copied. Which some would say is the situation with the MPAA and RIAA.
I think their problem is with people all along the chain leaking, and if they want to prevent leaks they'd have to find out which theaters are leaking and stop selling to them. But that, of course, is not as profitable/cost effective as using the government to punish/scare people into submission - which is only possible when government gets out of control.
Instead, I think there should only be a tax on land. Land cannot be created, and taxing it rather than property (as in houses or buildings) does not discourage development, but rather encourages it. No one would want to own land that they do not use to make profit. Land should be taxed based on the free market value of that land.
Now THAT's a simple tax.
I want to end public schools. Time and time again, history has shown that the government CANNOT do things as efficiently or as well as private enterprise.
I think the government should spend $0 a year on basic research, for the same reason as above. That money (which comes from tax dollars) could be instead invested (by citizens, of their own free will) into private companies and universities who do research.
Remember folks, if people won't pay money for it, how can you argue that it benefits society? IT DOESN'T. You can only argue that you know better than other people what is best for them.
While may have said things that later turned out to be false, that does NOT necessarily mean that he lied, and by asserting that he lied when you do not know that for sure, YOU are being misleading.
If he believed that he was telling the truth, he did not lie, he was simply wrong. If I'm terrible at math and I say 10 + 10 = 30, according to my best calculation, then I'm not lying, I'm simply wrong.
Please do not corrupt the meaning of the word "lie".
Well, all that shows is that digital rights boils down what you just said. The meaning of theft / intellectual property / property in general is the main problem that people are discussing, because its the only problem. If everyone agreed on this, there'd be no debate at all.
The reason I believe so is that when one copies a work, this does not remove anything from the original work. Yes, you could be hurting the creator's ability to make money on his/her works, but let's take a look at this.
Let's say you find some genius's play script, and you copy it and say you wrote it, and sell it to a Broadway company, who produces it. You're an asshole. But do we really need a law to punish people who do so?
Imagine a libertarian society where this happens. You sell the play and make some cash. Then, the original author says, "Hey! I wrote that, not you, jerk!" People start to find out you're an asshole and stop associating with you. They don't let you near things that they create, and they stop buying copied works from you. This happens whether you're a person or a corporation.
The creators learn which producers are good about protecting their works, and only sell to them. They learn to make good contracts and protect themselves before showing anyone their works. Thus, copyright is protected by normal contract law, and the legal system is that much simpler.
And you're sitting there, ostracized, because you're an ass. And rightfully so.
Besides, isn't free software based on contracts? People don't need copyrights, just licenses like the GPL or BDS license to protect their work. Yes, you can delete the license and say it's yours, but the truth is hard to hide.
You're trying to explain what would happen under a libertarian government using the rules of our non-libertarian government. Libertarian capitalism is survival of the fittest, not the largest and most well-connected like it is now.
And thus, the RIAA and MPAA would be avoided in favor of non-draconian music and movie companies, and would soon change their policies or go out of business. By the way, this logical error is called a false dichotomy - ignoring all but two possibilities in a multitude.
Corporations cannot have power except through corruption in government. They can do their best to deceive and spread FUD, but when word gets around, they won't stay in business unless the government helps them out. If google decides what your best interests are, you stop using them, but if other people vote on what your best interests are, you get things like prohibition of alcohol, smoking in bars (private businesses!), and the war on drugs.
And who says profit is a bad thing? EVERYONE is motivated by profit, whether monetary or spiritual or whatever. Do you think people would give charity without getting good feelings inside (or negating bad feelings of guilt)? We're higher level animals, but evolution favors those who do things in their own interests.
I agree, though, free market competition is the way to go. Right now google is making the best product by far, and so they dominate - for now. But we shouldn't rule out the possibility of someone else surpassing them in the future.
We've got huge spending on education - it just doesn't work. That's why our public schools generally suck. Healthcare isn't as much of a priority (thank God) but it's getting there. You can get expensive care, but it costs you, which is how it should be. I don't think it should be as expensive as it is; unfortunately medical regulations all over the place drive the price up.
I do agree that according to Wikipedia, we fit one of the definitions of facism: Corporatism. But not the other four (maybe a little propaganda, but it's getting better thanks to bloggers and such):
And finally, I agree that the amount we spend on the military is ridiculous. For what we spend, we could have our borders completely sealed to all but well-checked legal immigration. I'm not against immigration, just illegal immigration.
Isn't it amazing what a waste of money our government is? No politician would ever consider actually NOT SPENDING money they don't need. Tax freedom day falls on April 17 this year (after which, proportionally, you will spend the rest of the year working for yourself rather than the government).
We went to war with Britain over 5% taxes. Today, we're practically a socialist country. Ever wonder why the IRS takes your money automatically and invisibly? We'd never support such ridiculous taxes if we had to send them a check every month.
Ok, sorry for the rant. I feel better now.
The McCain-Feingold act really hurts third party candidates, to whom publicity is very expensive. Dems and Reps already have all the publicity they need, but if you're coming in from the side, you'd better have a lot of financial support. This act stop that support and effectively chokes out all but the two major parties (big surprise it's a bi-partisan law, huh?)
Then, there's the fairness doctrine. It makes radio stations devote equal time to both sides of every issue. Therefore, a liberal talk radio show would have to give equal air time to conservative hosts, and vice versa. Obviously, if a station is predominantly liberal or conservative, it will lose viewers and thus advertising dollars. Since conservative talk radio stations are more common than progressive ones, you will see Hillary Clinton support this act because it hurts them.
People have a view of censorship that the men in uniforms will swoop down on you if you say or write the wrong thing, but hitting peoples' wallets is far easier, more subtle, and less likely to be resisted.
- they will band together and claim the 29% are the morons
- those that deserve to be in power rarely end up there
- individuals have individual interests
- corporations are pushing their agenda for the entire healthcare system
You've just summed up why I'm a libertarian.If a blogger posts someone home address and tells people to harrass him, anyone who does so should be responsible for his own actions. I can run through the streets yelling "Lie, cheat, and steal!" but that's not a crime except for possibly disturbing the peace.
Blackmail, however, does make you a criminal. No matter what you threaten.