"I don't believe anything the government says." can mean a number of things.
It can mean he doesn't believe 'anything the government says'. or
he doesn't automatically believe what the government says.
It's possibile that he is an idiot, and originally meant that he believes the opposite of whatever they say, but I think it more likely that he meant to say that the government is a very unreliable source of many kinds of information, and you should get your facts from other sources. (preferably a variety)
If you're going to heat your house with electricity, it doesn't really matter how you do it. Almost any electrical appliance is a perfectly efficient electric heater. The only waste would be in light or sound that goes outside your house. In this case, the heater is also using water to add an aesthetic appeal. Where I live, water is cheap and plentiful, so that is not a drawback.
There is another principle that any theory that places us in a special place in the universe is likely wrong. I know, the anthropic princple can get around this, but I think it would be more compelling to have a model that shows that we are in fact likely. (in fact evolution is such a model, becuase it is not blind chance) But simply saying "everything that can happen does happen, and we are just one of those events" is not a much better scientific explanation than "here a miracle occurs"
This is a simple case of resarchers finding a way to make it easier to fulfill our basic right to copy.
Distributing a file on P2P might be illegal, but it is not immoral. This project is every bit as valid as anonymizer systems that let people in more oppresive regimes communicate illegal ideas.
That is true, but they do not enter into a contract with the 4 million people who read the paper. Those people can do whatever they like with the picture. It is naturally in the public domain.
But a license is irrelevant if I already have the right to do what I want with it because I bought it. If you don't have to agree to the license in order to get the product, then why should you agree to it after the fact? Licences as they are today are only meaningful becauase of copyright, they are not contracts freely entered into.
I would have no problem with it, and it is not immoral in the slightest.
I freely chose to give/sell my picture to them, they have the right to do anything they want with it. If they can make money publishing it, good for them. They are getting paid for doing work (publishing). I can get paid for making art.
I have no right to exclusive control of information in the public domain, even if I created it.
No one can own a song. I have a natural right to copy a CD, and sell that copy. Nothing is being taken from the 'copyright' holder, and No Harm is being done.
The other thing to remember is that many humans fall into the uncanny valley, through disease or disability. We have enough social conditioning in place that lets us get over that, and talk to people. If her conversation was intellignet, I think the humans psychological response would be the same as talking to someone with a motor-control disease of some kind.
I assume the phrase triple alignment arises because we see three planets near each other in the sky, but this really means that four planets (counting Earth) are nearly in line with each other. It's probably not so uncommon for three planets to be nearly colinear, it's just rare that we are in a colinear position to see them.
Hey, don't knock it. The only reason launch is 'expensive' is because of the resource games we play down here, and a lack of long range investors. If someone finds a way to negate the economic impacts of added launch weight, then we can start focusing on launching what is technically possible. (which is alot) If we ever get a real colonization program going, it will quite possibly involve some kind of government subsidy per colonist. With the economic impact off the launcher, the ships will be made as large as possible (up to the limit of what the government can afford)
So if enron-style accounting can get us 'free' launch mass, I say go for it. This could be the greatest moment in the history of spaceflight.
Please, It is not the least bit unscrupulous to block popups. I have a right to keep my computer under my control.
This is the right that popup ads skip along the border of violating. Just because the my browser lets you do something doesn't mean you should do it. There's a fine line between using a feature and exploiting a vulnerability. In my mind, Popups almost constitute unauthorized access.
Generally I don't mind ads, usually I value them as entertainment or useful information in themselves. This isn't an anti-ad bias on my part.
My real problem is the general trend of people not really owning their machines anymore. DRM is high on the list of problems, but the very fact that popups could exist at all I think indicates a design philosophy that doesn't place a high value on the user.
You don't _have_ to do anything. If you _choose_ to release your works, other people naturally have the right to copy them. Plagiarism, as I've already explained, is a seperate issue.
Just because copyright is useful does not mean it is moral. Slavery is useful. I'm sure there are lots of way you can infringe on people's rights that are useful.
The question is, How do you get a right that supercedes my right to free speech? Copying your work does not harm you or anyone else. Period.
I think you underestimate the degree to which artists have been copied throughout history.
Other than quoting the microsoft site, I don't think I've used the phrase intellectual property. I do understand that trademark, patents, and copyright are seperate issues. That was RMS's point. I am against copyright, I think I am against patents. I think trademarks are needed to establish trust in commerce, and only minimally affect people's rights. I think the trade-off is worthwhile.
I do not think that the microsoft campaign is geared towards trademark protection. Microsofts concern is clearly copyright. Patents and trademarks mainly affect business, and most youth do not control any businesses, but many have unlicenced copies of office. That is their focus, so that is what I responded to.
Your works are your property only as long as you keep them private. Your creativity does not give you the right to tell me what I can do with the art you made. You don't own the image, the image is just there. When I see it, it goes into my mind, and is as much mine as yours. The difference is that you have the knowledge and talent that produced it.
I wouldn't push for such laws, rather I view them as a compromise. I don't think trademarks are nearly as intrusive as copyrights. (Though there are directions I don't like.) My problem is that in the copyright debate, when plagiarism comes up, there is no moral high ground. I can't say 'it's ok' so I need to provide a solution.
I do not draw the line anywhere. If you make millions off of my story, that is your right. You have the right to do what you want with your printer and your book. What right do I have to stop you? If copyright didn't exist, you would be selling books not stories, you would earn your profits by manufaturing and marketing books. I would earn my money by getting people to pay me to write stories. As long as people want new stories, they will pay for them. Supply and demand. Google 'street performer protocol'. Claiming the work as your own is plagiarism. This is widely considered unethical, but even now it is not illegal. I would not mind strengthening the law in this area. I think the best way to do this would be to strengthen trademark law in specific ways. This would make it easier for consumers to know that their dollars would go to the artists.
There is one key difference I can think of between a world without copyright and the GPL. Distribution of source code is required under the GPL. If copyright were obliterated, (as it should be) then anyone (even microsoft) would be able to distribute proprietary (closed source) versions of Linux. But really, you would just need to pay attention if you really only want to run Open Source. I do not view it as a loss. I do not believe that people have a right to place restrictions on others the way that the GPL does, but I understand it's utility
The subject of the videos is supposed to be 'intellectual property theft'. But as I'm most here know, copying something or using a patented device with out a licence is not theft. It does not deprive anyone of anything.
No one can own an idea.
If you want to claim you own data, keep it private. Once you sell it to me, it is mine, to keep or to give away. Copyright is immoral. If you tell me a story, you do not have the right to tell me that I cannot repeat it. Everyone has the right to say what is on their mind, regardless of who first thought of it. The mere act of creation does not give you any special rights to tell other people what they can do with their property.
This is part of a pattern of major IP holders brainwashing children, there needs to be an alternative voice in the classroom.
I agree with your interpretation of the constitution, but that does not mean that we do have a right to privacy. The thing about privacy is that it impinges on the rights of others. If you're in public, people have a right to look at you, remember what you look like, the things you do, and your name. they also have the right to tell this information to anyone they want. By extension, people have the right to record your image on video, use biometrics to associate your face with your credit card information, and sell their findings to other businesses. If you want privacy, do it in private.
Slashdot Mirror
That was hysterical.
You made my day.
"I don't believe anything the government says." can mean a number of things. It can mean he doesn't believe 'anything the government says'. or
he doesn't automatically believe what the government says.
It's possibile that he is an idiot, and originally meant that he believes the opposite of whatever they say, but I think it more likely that he meant to say that the government is a very unreliable source of many kinds of information, and you should get your facts from other sources. (preferably a variety)
If you're going to heat your house with electricity, it doesn't really matter how you do it. Almost any electrical appliance is a perfectly efficient electric heater. The only waste would be in light or sound that goes outside your house. In this case, the heater is also using water to add an aesthetic appeal. Where I live, water is cheap and plentiful, so that is not a drawback.
There is another principle that any theory that places us in a special place in the universe is likely wrong.
I know, the anthropic princple can get around this, but I think it would be more compelling to have a model that shows that we are in fact likely. (in fact evolution is such a model, becuase it is not blind chance)
But simply saying "everything that can happen does happen, and we are just one of those events" is not a much better scientific explanation than "here a miracle occurs"
This is a simple case of resarchers finding a way to make it easier to fulfill our basic right to copy.
Distributing a file on P2P might be illegal, but it is not immoral. This project is every bit as valid as anonymizer systems that let people in more oppresive regimes communicate illegal ideas.
That is true, but they do not enter into a contract with the 4 million people who read the paper. Those people can do whatever they like with the picture. It is naturally in the public domain.
There are also a few of us who believe in god, but not in morality.
But a license is irrelevant if I already have the right to do what I want with it because I bought it.
If you don't have to agree to the license in order to get the product, then why should you agree to it after the fact? Licences as they are today are only meaningful becauase of copyright, they are not contracts freely entered into.
The law does not dictate morality. Unless he made a contract with me, the picture is his to do with as he pleases, even if I only sold him a copy.
I would have no problem with it, and it is not immoral in the slightest. I freely chose to give/sell my picture to them, they have the right to do anything they want with it. If they can make money publishing it, good for them. They are getting paid for doing work (publishing). I can get paid for making art. I have no right to exclusive control of information in the public domain, even if I created it.
Scarcity of information is not 'a general state of things'. Copyright creates an artificial scarcity, and destroys the free market of information.
No one can own a song. I have a natural right to copy a CD, and sell that copy. Nothing is being taken from the 'copyright' holder, and No Harm is being done.
The other thing to remember is that many humans fall into the uncanny valley, through disease or disability. We have enough social conditioning in place that lets us get over that, and talk to people. If her conversation was intellignet, I think the humans psychological response would be the same as talking to someone with a motor-control disease of some kind.
Anyone who is even mildly paranoid is not going to want to install (trusted?) software that gives away their location every time they get online.
I assume the phrase triple alignment arises because we see three planets near each other in the sky, but this really means that four planets (counting Earth) are nearly in line with each other.
It's probably not so uncommon for three planets to be nearly colinear, it's just rare that we are in a colinear position to see them.
Hey, don't knock it. The only reason launch is 'expensive' is because of the resource games we play down here, and a lack of long range investors. If someone finds a way to negate the economic impacts of added launch weight, then we can start focusing on launching what is technically possible. (which is alot)
If we ever get a real colonization program going, it will quite possibly involve some kind of government subsidy per colonist. With the economic impact off the launcher, the ships will be made as large as possible (up to the limit of what the government can afford)
So if enron-style accounting can get us 'free' launch mass, I say go for it. This could be the greatest moment in the history of spaceflight.
Please, It is not the least bit unscrupulous to block popups. I have a right to keep my computer under my control.
This is the right that popup ads skip along the border of violating. Just because the my browser lets you do something doesn't mean you should do it. There's a fine line between using a feature and exploiting a vulnerability. In my mind, Popups almost constitute unauthorized access.
Generally I don't mind ads, usually I value them as entertainment or useful information in themselves. This isn't an anti-ad bias on my part.
My real problem is the general trend of people not really owning their machines anymore. DRM is high on the list of problems, but the very fact that popups could exist at all I think indicates a design philosophy that doesn't place a high value on the user.
So shouldn't Microsoft have to release their presentation as open source now?
For the Record: The GPL is not Viral like that. Microsoft still has full legal rights to their content.
But it would be nice if someone challenged them, to force them to state that the GPL doesn't take away their independent copyrights.
You don't _have_ to do anything. If you _choose_ to release your works, other people naturally have the right to copy them. Plagiarism, as I've already explained, is a seperate issue.
Just because copyright is useful does not mean it is moral. Slavery is useful. I'm sure there are lots of way you can infringe on people's rights that are useful.
The question is, How do you get a right that supercedes my right to free speech? Copying your work does not harm you or anyone else. Period.
I think you underestimate the degree to which artists have been copied throughout history.
Other than quoting the microsoft site, I don't think I've used the phrase intellectual property. I do understand that trademark, patents, and copyright are seperate issues. That was RMS's point. I am against copyright, I think I am against patents. I think trademarks are needed to establish trust in commerce, and only minimally affect people's rights. I think the trade-off is worthwhile.
I do not think that the microsoft campaign is geared towards trademark protection. Microsofts concern is clearly copyright. Patents and trademarks mainly affect business, and most youth do not control any businesses, but many have unlicenced copies of office. That is their focus, so that is what I responded to.
Your works are your property only as long as you keep them private. Your creativity does not give you the right to tell me what I can do with the art you made. You don't own the image, the image is just there. When I see it, it goes into my mind, and is as much mine as yours. The difference is that you have the knowledge and talent that produced it.
I wouldn't push for such laws, rather I view them as a compromise. I don't think trademarks are nearly as intrusive as copyrights. (Though there are directions I don't like.)
My problem is that in the copyright debate, when plagiarism comes up, there is no moral high ground. I can't say 'it's ok' so I need to provide a solution.
I do not draw the line anywhere. If you make millions off of my story, that is your right. You have the right to do what you want with your printer and your book. What right do I have to stop you?
If copyright didn't exist, you would be selling books not stories, you would earn your profits by manufaturing and marketing books. I would earn my money by getting people to pay me to write stories. As long as people want new stories, they will pay for them. Supply and demand. Google 'street performer protocol'.
Claiming the work as your own is plagiarism. This is widely considered unethical, but even now it is not illegal. I would not mind strengthening the law in this area. I think the best way to do this would be to strengthen trademark law in specific ways. This would make it easier for consumers to know that their dollars would go to the artists.
There is one key difference I can think of between a world without copyright and the GPL. Distribution of source code is required under the GPL. If copyright were obliterated, (as it should be) then anyone (even microsoft) would be able to distribute proprietary (closed source) versions of Linux. But really, you would just need to pay attention if you really only want to run Open Source. I do not view it as a loss.
I do not believe that people have a right to place restrictions on others the way that the GPL does, but I understand it's utility
The subject of the videos is supposed to be 'intellectual property theft'. But as I'm most here know, copying something or using a patented device with out a licence is not theft. It does not deprive anyone of anything.
No one can own an idea.
If you want to claim you own data, keep it private. Once you sell it to me, it is mine, to keep or to give away.
Copyright is immoral. If you tell me a story, you do not have the right to tell me that I cannot repeat it. Everyone has the right to say what is on their mind, regardless of who first thought of it. The mere act of creation does not give you any special rights to tell other people what they can do with their property.
This is part of a pattern of major IP holders brainwashing children,
there needs to be an alternative voice in the classroom.
I agree with your interpretation of the constitution, but that does not mean that we do have a right to privacy. The thing about privacy is that it impinges on the rights of others. If you're in public, people have a right to look at you, remember what you look like, the things you do, and your name. they also have the right to tell this information to anyone they want. By extension, people have the right to record your image on video, use biometrics to associate your face with your credit card information, and sell their findings to other businesses.
If you want privacy, do it in private.