Your logic is astounding --- I guess we have no grounds to ojbect or complain about anything unless it violates a natural human right. Now genius, why not define natural human right for us.
Here is one for you. The corporation doesn't have a natural right to make a profit, nor use the roads that taxpayers pay for, nor the airwaves for communications that are owned by the people, etc. etc. etc. You corporate apologists make me want to puke.
Second, it's difficult to remember passphrases! Phone numbers (In the US, at least) are limited to
10 digits because research shows the average person can only memorize 10 digits, as a result...we tend to write things down
Nonsense. I recall the phrase "Whan that April with his showres soote" from 20 years ago when I read it for the first and last time. 3 years before that I memorized pi to 21 decimal places --- I still know them. How about "Now is the winter of our discontent"? or "The lord is my shepherd. I shall not be in want"? or thousands of others?
Memorizing a phrase -- particularly a phrase that means something to you, is not as difficult as memorizing the first 3 entries in the phone book.
My parents created me as a work of art. Therefore, the police department cannot make copies of my image or fingerprints or DNA without paying the appropriate licensing fees. It's time to sue.
I think it's all a bunch of bullshit. I am a lone wolf type. I don't get along well with others. I couldn't give two shits less whether people "accept" me or not, since I frankly don't value most peoples' opinions on anything. I have completed several projects, under pressure, to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Everybody's different.
Have you ever heard of money orders? Last time I checked, you can get them at the P.O. or EZ-Mart. Amazon and many people on eBay will gladly take them.
Of course, one can always change the line spacing and the fonts in TeX. I use LaTeX for nearly everything I write. One of the many reasons I like it is its flexibility. When I use Word, I feel like I'm constantly fighting the damned thing.
At last, at long last, we boil all the pretense of logic, argument, and reasoning away --- the smoke clears, and the crux of your "debate" is revealed. You personally think it is morally wrong to copy a book, cd, etc. That's it. No capitalism vs. socialism, no theft vs. copying, no law vs. lawlessness --- just you bleating "It's wrong, because it's wrong, because it's wrong wrong wrong!"
We are indeed most fortunate that not everyone views the subject the way you do. For, nothing would EVER be created. There is very little that is completely new. Almost every song, play, movie, piece of art borrows --- excuse me, in your language, STEALS --- from those who came before. When you play that guitar, you are stealing someone elses licks, chords, harmonies, styles. Do you have anything new to sing about? Love? Depression? War? It's all been said before. So, when you rearrange the words, they are not really yours, they are a permutation of someone else's, and so you owe them for STEALING their ideas. We see in practice how this goes: Disney drinks deep from the public domain (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.) But when it comes time for them add their contribution, NO WAY!!!! Mickey Mouse is THEIRS and THEIRS ALONE for all eternity. What hypocrisy!!!
I didn't say wealth is a zero sum game. You might want to get over yourself for a couple of nanoseconds, and stop putting words in my mouth.
An idea without a physical manifestation has no retail value. Get it? Go point out where I can purchase the idea of Beethoven's 5th. The notion is absurd.
To vote responsibly, you have to be aware of, and have accurate information about what the real issues are. Then you have to think critically about the issues before casting your ballot. It turns out that our schools aren't doing their job of training people to think for themselves and analyze an argument. IMHO this is the most important job of a teacher. Before we castigate the parents, be aware that they came from the same system.
The other point is that the power mongers do their damndest to keep critical information out of reach. After a hard day at work, and an evening spent helping the kids with their homework, making dinner and what all, who has the time to do actual research? Most people are going to flip on the TV, tune in to the FOX, NBC, whatever, nightly news, and consider themselves informed.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite.
How is wealth measured exactly? Are you saying there is an infinite amount of silver and gold? Or an infinite amount of paper? How about oil, coal, cattle, fish, automobiles, wood, paper, plastic, land? Plays, novels, music, art, are wonderful stuff, and as long as people are alive, they will have value --- but only inasmuch as they have a physical presence in the form of a book or a cd, or are performed live.
In the end, there are two types of material -- inorganic (metals) and organic (living stuff). Both of these are in finite supply. You are the one who really doesn't know what you are talking about.
It seems to me that you have unwittingly fallen into the trap that many socialists accuse capitalists of believing in: the theory that one person is so much more important than everyone else.
No. Where did I state, explicitly or implicitly, that I worship Newton, or think he was the greatest human to draw a breath of air? I used the fact that Newton wasn't paid for his creation to give lie to the quoted assertion made by the GP.
Like it or not, but capitalism has had more success at creating the goods that people want than any of the miserable failures of so-called "socialist paradises".
Another proponent of the theory that money, or what can be purchased with it (goods and services) is the end-all, be-all of human existence. Hedonism is not attractive.
I wasn't "framing your argument". I was pointing out the absurdity of one of your statements --- the quoted statement --- the one that implied that without (financial) compensation, there is no incentive to do anything.
If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything?
Do you charge someone when they ask you what time it is? If you open a door for a little old lady, do you demand payment? When you make love to your girlfriend or wife, do you charge for that too? Your perception of the world is clearly filtered through the corporate green lens of "what's in it for me?"
Did Isaac Newton get paid for inventing the Calculus? If not, why the hell did he invent it?
Here are some possible answers to the question of incentive: someone wants to be kind, or better their situation, or better the situation of all, or is simply driven to create, dissect, analyze.
What a sad, sad creature that perceives every human activity and transaction in terms of dollars and cents.
When I was in college, I used the transit to get around. A minor inconvenience, sure. But, I didn't have to drive on the ice, dodge the other drivers, pay the insurance, get all pissed off when people cut me off, etc. I just sat back, put on the headphones, and read a book. I miss it.
One last bit: If I buy a Rolling Stones cd, then I have not purchased the work, correct? Because the work is the property, and with the work comes the rights. So, if I make copies, then there is no stealing going on, because Mick and Co. still possess the work --- I do not. Get out of this dilemma.
Because you don't own the original, and only the owner of the original has the right to make more copies.
Please explain this one to Robert Plant, among others, who don't have the copyrights to their creations. The original copy has nothing to do with it. Suppose a recording is remastered, and then the original is lost --- then who has the rights? That has got to be one of the most moronic things I have ever read.
Right. So can written works, musical compositions, recordings, movies, and inventions. So, especially, can computer programs.
There are three different types of thing here.
(1) an abstract string of symbols, notes, or images, (2) a physical copy of the string of symbols, notes, or images, and (3) the right to reproduce the string of symbols, notes, or images.
Type (1) things cannot be bought or sold. Type (2) things can be purchased from various merchants. Type (3) things are originally owned by the creator. The creator may make copies [type (2) things] to sell to individuals. The creator may also choose to sell the type (3) thing, typically at a much higher price than the type (2) thing. No one owns the type (1) thing, and our government does not recognize such things as being property, capable of being bought, sold, or traded.
Man, you're really bending over backwards to try to twist this into an "I can steal whatever I want" thing, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel kind of guilty, on some level at least?
Nope. If I make copy, then I have stolen your exclusive right to copy the work. There are laws that punish that kind of thing.
Because, see, ideas are property. They are because people agree that they are.
Not once they are let loose in the wild. Ideas are not property. Property can be traded, bought, sold. If you play a song, record it, sell it on a cd, what is actually being sold? What is the property? If the song is the property, then once you sell it to me, it becomes MY PROPERTY, for which you have received money, that is now your property. That's the way it works. However, I find that I cannot make legal copies to sell to other people. Therefore, the property is the disc with the pits on it --- in other words, a copy. You own the right to make copies, I do not. That exclusive right to copy is YOUR PROPERTY. Those rights may be sold to a corporation, say --- for a lot more money than a copy of the disc. Once you sell the rights, not even you can make copies anymore.
Once again, IDEAS are not PROPERTY, unless kept to oneself.
Once someone other than you has a copy of "your stuff", by say purchasing it, "the stuff" isn't yours anymore. They can scribble on it, modify it, burn it, eat it, play it, and read it any time they wish to do so. The only thing they cannot do with it is make a copy. That is what you now own. You traded your creation (which was your exclusive property as long as you kept it to yourself) for the exclusive right to make copies of it. Those rights also have limits, and expiration dates. Once the right expires, you have no property rights to that work at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic is astounding --- I guess we have no grounds to ojbect or complain about anything unless it violates a natural human right. Now genius, why not define natural human right for us.
Here is one for you. The corporation doesn't have a natural right to make a profit, nor use the roads that taxpayers pay for, nor the airwaves for communications that are owned by the people, etc. etc. etc. You corporate apologists make me want to puke.
Wow. See my post a little further down. I swear I composed it without reading yours first.
Shakespeare rocks!
Second, it's difficult to remember passphrases! Phone numbers (In the US, at least) are limited to 10 digits because research shows the average person can only memorize 10 digits, as a result...we tend to write things down
Nonsense. I recall the phrase "Whan that April with his showres soote" from 20 years ago when I read it for the first and last time. 3 years before that I memorized pi to 21 decimal places --- I still know them. How about "Now is the winter of our discontent"? or "The lord is my shepherd. I shall not be in want"? or thousands of others?
Memorizing a phrase -- particularly a phrase that means something to you, is not as difficult as memorizing the first 3 entries in the phone book.
Just you wait until those things are available on P2P networks. Your ass will be MINE ... for FREE!!! ;)
Let's call me an architectural work --- in progress.
My parents created me as a work of art. Therefore, the police department cannot make copies of my image or fingerprints or DNA without paying the appropriate licensing fees. It's time to sue.
I think it's all a bunch of bullshit. I am a lone wolf type. I don't get along well with others. I couldn't give two shits less whether people "accept" me or not, since I frankly don't value most peoples' opinions on anything. I have completed several projects, under pressure, to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Everybody's different.
If you're underage, you get big brother or a friend to purchase it for you.
If it's prohibition time for all, you make the stuff yourself.
No stealing required.
Have you ever heard of money orders? Last time I checked, you can get them at the P.O. or EZ-Mart. Amazon and many people on eBay will gladly take them.
Of course, one can always change the line spacing and the fonts in TeX. I use LaTeX for nearly everything I write. One of the many reasons I like it is its flexibility. When I use Word, I feel like I'm constantly fighting the damned thing.
At last, at long last, we boil all the pretense of logic, argument, and reasoning away --- the smoke clears, and the crux of your "debate" is revealed. You personally think it is morally wrong to copy a book, cd, etc. That's it. No capitalism vs. socialism, no theft vs. copying, no law vs. lawlessness --- just you bleating "It's wrong, because it's wrong, because it's wrong wrong wrong!"
We are indeed most fortunate that not everyone views the subject the way you do. For, nothing would EVER be created. There is very little that is completely new. Almost every song, play, movie, piece of art borrows --- excuse me, in your language, STEALS --- from those who came before. When you play that guitar, you are stealing someone elses licks, chords, harmonies, styles. Do you have anything new to sing about? Love? Depression? War? It's all been said before. So, when you rearrange the words, they are not really yours, they are a permutation of someone else's, and so you owe them for STEALING their ideas. We see in practice how this goes: Disney drinks deep from the public domain (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.) But when it comes time for them add their contribution, NO WAY!!!! Mickey Mouse is THEIRS and THEIRS ALONE for all eternity. What hypocrisy!!!
You really are woefully inadequate at trolling.
I didn't say wealth is a zero sum game. You might want to get over yourself for a couple of nanoseconds, and stop putting words in my mouth.
An idea without a physical manifestation has no retail value. Get it? Go point out where I can purchase the idea of Beethoven's 5th. The notion is absurd.
A couple of points:
To vote responsibly, you have to be aware of, and have accurate information about what the real issues are. Then you have to think critically about the issues before casting your ballot. It turns out that our schools aren't doing their job of training people to think for themselves and analyze an argument. IMHO this is the most important job of a teacher. Before we castigate the parents, be aware that they came from the same system.
The other point is that the power mongers do their damndest to keep critical information out of reach. After a hard day at work, and an evening spent helping the kids with their homework, making dinner and what all, who has the time to do actual research? Most people are going to flip on the TV, tune in to the FOX, NBC, whatever, nightly news, and consider themselves informed.
Now I know you really don't know what you're talking about. This is not a zero sum game, and wealth is most definitely not finite.
How is wealth measured exactly? Are you saying there is an infinite amount of silver and gold? Or an infinite amount of paper? How about oil, coal, cattle, fish, automobiles, wood, paper, plastic, land? Plays, novels, music, art, are wonderful stuff, and as long as people are alive, they will have value --- but only inasmuch as they have a physical presence in the form of a book or a cd, or are performed live.
In the end, there are two types of material -- inorganic (metals) and organic (living stuff). Both of these are in finite supply. You are the one who really doesn't know what you are talking about.
It seems to me that you have unwittingly fallen into the trap that many socialists accuse capitalists of believing in: the theory that one person is so much more important than everyone else.
No. Where did I state, explicitly or implicitly, that I worship Newton, or think he was the greatest human to draw a breath of air? I used the fact that Newton wasn't paid for his creation to give lie to the quoted assertion made by the GP.
Like it or not, but capitalism has had more success at creating the goods that people want than any of the miserable failures of so-called "socialist paradises".
Another proponent of the theory that money, or what can be purchased with it (goods and services) is the end-all, be-all of human existence. Hedonism is not attractive.
I wasn't "framing your argument". I was pointing out the absurdity of one of your statements --- the quoted statement --- the one that implied that without (financial) compensation, there is no incentive to do anything.
If everything could be gotten for free, then where's your incentive to do anything?
Do you charge someone when they ask you what time it is? If you open a door for a little old lady, do you demand payment? When you make love to your girlfriend or wife, do you charge for that too? Your perception of the world is clearly filtered through the corporate green lens of "what's in it for me?"
Did Isaac Newton get paid for inventing the Calculus? If not, why the hell did he invent it?
Here are some possible answers to the question of incentive: someone wants to be kind, or better their situation, or better the situation of all, or is simply driven to create, dissect, analyze.
What a sad, sad creature that perceives every human activity and transaction in terms of dollars and cents.
When I was in college, I used the transit to get around. A minor inconvenience, sure. But, I didn't have to drive on the ice, dodge the other drivers, pay the insurance, get all pissed off when people cut me off, etc. I just sat back, put on the headphones, and read a book. I miss it.
Cop stops person talking on cellphone while driving.
Cop takes phone and hands driver a bottle of vodka.
Lives are saved.
I think you fail to understand what "property" means.
One last bit: If I buy a Rolling Stones cd, then I have not purchased the work, correct? Because the work is the property, and with the work comes the rights. So, if I make copies, then there is no stealing going on, because Mick and Co. still possess the work --- I do not. Get out of this dilemma.
Because you don't own the original, and only the owner of the original has the right to make more copies.
Please explain this one to Robert Plant, among others, who don't have the copyrights to their creations. The original copy has nothing to do with it. Suppose a recording is remastered, and then the original is lost --- then who has the rights? That has got to be one of the most moronic things I have ever read.
Right. So can written works, musical compositions, recordings, movies, and inventions. So, especially, can computer programs.
There are three different types of thing here.
(1) an abstract string of symbols, notes, or images,
(2) a physical copy of the string of symbols, notes, or images, and
(3) the right to reproduce the string of symbols, notes, or images.
Type (1) things cannot be bought or sold. Type (2) things can be purchased from various merchants. Type (3) things are originally owned by the creator. The creator may make copies [type (2) things] to sell to individuals. The creator may also choose to sell the type (3) thing, typically at a much higher price than the type (2) thing. No one owns the type (1) thing, and our government does not recognize such things as being property, capable of being bought, sold, or traded.
Man, you're really bending over backwards to try to twist this into an "I can steal whatever I want" thing, aren't you? Doesn't that make you feel kind of guilty, on some level at least?
Nope. If I make copy, then I have stolen your exclusive right to copy the work. There are laws that punish that kind of thing.
Because, see, ideas are property. They are because people agree that they are.
Not once they are let loose in the wild. Ideas are not property. Property can be traded, bought, sold. If you play a song, record it, sell it on a cd, what is actually being sold? What is the property? If the song is the property, then once you sell it to me, it becomes MY PROPERTY, for which you have received money, that is now your property. That's the way it works. However, I find that I cannot make legal copies to sell to other people. Therefore, the property is the disc with the pits on it --- in other words, a copy. You own the right to make copies, I do not. That exclusive right to copy is YOUR PROPERTY. Those rights may be sold to a corporation, say --- for a lot more money than a copy of the disc. Once you sell the rights, not even you can make copies anymore.
Once again, IDEAS are not PROPERTY, unless kept to oneself.
Once someone other than you has a copy of "your stuff", by say purchasing it, "the stuff" isn't yours anymore. They can scribble on it, modify it, burn it, eat it, play it, and read it any time they wish to do so. The only thing they cannot do with it is make a copy. That is what you now own. You traded your creation (which was your exclusive property as long as you kept it to yourself) for the exclusive right to make copies of it. Those rights also have limits, and expiration dates. Once the right expires, you have no property rights to that work at all.
Chickens, pigeons, robins, and vultures are still something that has wings, beaks, and are covered in feathers.
Most rational people would just call them "birds" and be done with it.
Therefore, a chicken = a robin. Pass that bird sandwich please.