"I think I'll stick with Lessig's opinions and the surprisingly readable US Constitution."
The surprisingly readable clause: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
"The lower cost of publishing should bring lower protections and fewer created rights because fewer incentives are required."
"We should allow people to make exact copies of almost all works and distribute them freely."
It doesn't at all sound like the copyright clause of the Constitution.
You might reread that clause and notice the word exclusive.
"but I hope I didn't make the military out to be a bad choice"
Oh, please. That's exactly what you started out trying to do.
"If that happens to be a place where you get shot at (and there seem to be quite a lot of those nowadays), then that's where you're going, no matter what your degree or where you got it."
I know it's not normal here, but you can find an opinion by someone who actually knows the law and read it. Look for [Orin Kerr, March 20, 2008 at 6:29pm].
The previous generation had free education and healthcare paid for, mostly, by older taxpayers.
Does your ass hurt when you speak out of it so loudly? That is complete bullshit. You either know better and you're lying or you don't and prove the point that you're simply an "entitled" whiner.
Y'know, I keep hearing about that "nasty shock" from those disgruntled. You want to know what happens when they do get up the nerve to go? They are replaced. Usually by someone who appreciates a paycheck.
"...namely that younger workers will use your corporate network to run most any device, technology or social networking software they can get their hands on. Dubbed "Millenials," these workers born after 1980 are nearly twice as likely to use cell phones and PDAs at work, and half admit to installing unauthorized software on their employer's computers. On the upside, the Millenials are more security aware than their older co-workers."
Um, no. That they install unverified social software on corporate machines and socialize at work means they are not more security aware. Social access is the number one security breach method.
I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours. "Nuts" and murder, extortion, false accusations, kidnapping and other activities are worlds apart.
No. You missed the point of designed. Others have eveolved toward that direction by the fact that inherently greedy people gravitate toward structures and manipulate them, but SciFientology was designed as a scam.
"To the degree that it is possible for us to solve aging, our current apathy about it is a little like voluntary genocide."
I'm pretty familiar with the topic and you're simply wrong. There's no apathy and there's not a lot of progress. Unless you have some new research I'm unfamiliar with and could provide a link?
Probably because he gets to define what "working for him" means and you don't.
Do not confuse pragmatic with "scared of change", nor "love of change" with intelligence.
Do any of the people here ever crack a damned dictionary? That's the definition. Too friggin' bad if it precludes this device. Telepathy is the direct communication between brains.
Except there's no "inner-ear receiver". Also, telepathy wouldn't be screwed up by a nearby transmitter. No, not telepathy, which is defined as "communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception".
"So, the question of whether or not to legitimize something that a large portion of the population is already doing anyway is a good one. Think Prohibition."
No, don't think Prohibition, that would be straw. Laws against drinking are not synonymous to laws against stealing. I also content your "a large portion". Sounds like excuse making.
"Your second is jumping into a philosophical debate with something that doesn't make much sense -- the whole point of calling it "intellectual property" is so that there can be a concept of theft, right?
Well, I didn't steal the copyright, and can't."
The problem with pedantry is the user gets painted into a corner, as most words have more than one meaning.
Copyright exists to protect distribution rights. When you break copyright, you are ripping off a product you have no right to and that is stealing.
No man is a kumquat either. Trite sayings belie what will follow.
Um, screw communism and the horse it rode off with and yes, it's communism as your argument leaves not one whit of self.
I have already given back to society in the form of reciprocity of ideas, help, etc. Therefore, my personal work done by me to benefit me is only mine and not yours, your grandmas or anyone else's unless they wish to reciprocate and I and only I can set the terms with which I accept the reciprocation. If others do not like my terms, they are free to disassociate from me.
I always love reading the logic of how others owe everyone their work framed in extreme pedantry and cast to make it seem like those being ripped off are morally inferior for not supplying vasoline as well as their products and how everyone else has made unspoken and unprovable contributions to the producer's life justifying said ripoff.
You must have had great classmates. Unfortunately, those I usually got teamed up with relied on me and another for the work. Unfortunately as well, even when she and I handed in assignments with only our names and materials the others got the same grades. It doesn't always work out all rosey. And don't give me the religious stuff about how they'll pay for it later. That doesn't do a damn thing about removing the weight from the shoulders of those who actually do the work.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think I'll stick with Lessig's opinions and the surprisingly readable US Constitution."
The surprisingly readable clause:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
"The lower cost of publishing should bring lower protections and fewer created rights because fewer incentives are required."
"We should allow people to make exact copies of almost all works and distribute them freely."
It doesn't at all sound like the copyright clause of the Constitution. You might reread that clause and notice the word exclusive.
"but I hope I didn't make the military out to be a bad choice"
Oh, please. That's exactly what you started out trying to do.
"If that happens to be a place where you get shot at (and there seem to be quite a lot of those nowadays), then that's where you're going, no matter what your degree or where you got it."
That is simply untrue.
I know it's not normal here, but you can find an opinion by someone who actually knows the law and read it. Look for [Orin Kerr, March 20, 2008 at 6:29pm].
I read that as a campaign to educate the public as to what is going on. Not necessarily at all a campaign by the government. Searching, are we?
When you talk on the phone, you hear both what you and your partner are saying. When you install software, you are not at all aware of all it's doing.
Except "everyone else" doesn't get what you claim, nor ever have.
The previous generation had free education and healthcare paid for, mostly, by older taxpayers.
Does your ass hurt when you speak out of it so loudly? That is complete bullshit. You either know better and you're lying or you don't and prove the point that you're simply an "entitled" whiner.
Y'know, I keep hearing about that "nasty shock" from those disgruntled. You want to know what happens when they do get up the nerve to go? They are replaced. Usually by someone who appreciates a paycheck.
"...namely that younger workers will use your corporate network to run most any device, technology or social networking software they can get their hands on. Dubbed "Millenials," these workers born after 1980 are nearly twice as likely to use cell phones and PDAs at work, and half admit to installing unauthorized software on their employer's computers. On the upside, the Millenials are more security aware than their older co-workers."
Um, no. That they install unverified social software on corporate machines and socialize at work means they are not more security aware. Social access is the number one security breach method.
(and the U.S. is no better)
Please provide something more substantive than a pompous assertion.
I'll bet neither have the fundie Christians or Islamists done anything directly to harm you and yours. "Nuts" and murder, extortion, false accusations, kidnapping and other activities are worlds apart.
No. You missed the point of designed. Others have eveolved toward that direction by the fact that inherently greedy people gravitate toward structures and manipulate them, but SciFientology was designed as a scam.
"To the degree that it is possible for us to solve aging, our current apathy about it is a little like voluntary genocide."
I'm pretty familiar with the topic and you're simply wrong. There's no apathy and there's not a lot of progress. Unless you have some new research I'm unfamiliar with and could provide a link?
Probably because he gets to define what "working for him" means and you don't. Do not confuse pragmatic with "scared of change", nor "love of change" with intelligence.
Do any of the people here ever crack a damned dictionary? That's the definition. Too friggin' bad if it precludes this device. Telepathy is the direct communication between brains.
Except there's no "inner-ear receiver". Also, telepathy wouldn't be screwed up by a nearby transmitter. No, not telepathy, which is defined as "communication between minds by some means other than sensory perception".
We incarcerate more people than china. You know this, how? China' honesty in telling the world how many they incarcerate?
"...because a genius physicist came up with a lunar robot, when he would have discovered a new type of nuclear fusion..."
You seem to have priorities.
You didn't win, did you?
"So, the question of whether or not to legitimize something that a large portion of the population is already doing anyway is a good one. Think Prohibition."
No, don't think Prohibition, that would be straw. Laws against drinking are not synonymous to laws against stealing. I also content your "a large portion". Sounds like excuse making.
"Your second is jumping into a philosophical debate with something that doesn't make much sense -- the whole point of calling it "intellectual property" is so that there can be a concept of theft, right?
Well, I didn't steal the copyright, and can't."
The problem with pedantry is the user gets painted into a corner, as most words have more than one meaning.
Copyright exists to protect distribution rights. When you break copyright, you are ripping off a product you have no right to and that is stealing.
"No man is an island."
No man is a kumquat either. Trite sayings belie what will follow.
Um, screw communism and the horse it rode off with and yes, it's communism as your argument leaves not one whit of self.
I have already given back to society in the form of reciprocity of ideas, help, etc. Therefore, my personal work done by me to benefit me is only mine and not yours, your grandmas or anyone else's unless they wish to reciprocate and I and only I can set the terms with which I accept the reciprocation. If others do not like my terms, they are free to disassociate from me.
I always love reading the logic of how others owe everyone their work framed in extreme pedantry and cast to make it seem like those being ripped off are morally inferior for not supplying vasoline as well as their products and how everyone else has made unspoken and unprovable contributions to the producer's life justifying said ripoff.
Ah, pedantry, the household of greed.
You must have had great classmates. Unfortunately, those I usually got teamed up with relied on me and another for the work. Unfortunately as well, even when she and I handed in assignments with only our names and materials the others got the same grades. It doesn't always work out all rosey. And don't give me the religious stuff about how they'll pay for it later. That doesn't do a damn thing about removing the weight from the shoulders of those who actually do the work.
"If the former, I'm fine if only the copyright holder can SELL copies."
So you would prevent them from entering into a legal contract to have someone else SELL the copies? Why? Aside from being cheap.