Our Egyptian linux guru had trouble translating this one. I however have a plausible theory that a proper translation is:
You insensitive clod!
Re:Yes, BK Makes an Enormous Difference
on
Bitkeeper News Redux
·
· Score: 5, Funny
...BK is easily the best of them...
Ok, ok, we get the message, Larry. You dont need to astroturf so vehemently. Or at least be more restrained, say, mention only 2 competitors at once in any of these completely spontaneous user testimonials, no?
No I dont. I remember grand press releases and boastful posturing coming out of SCO, not to mention Darl essentially using a megaphone next to the general public's ear at the time of Baystar/RoyalBank investment. Just about every major IT rag and quite few financial ones had a notice about it. And very few of them with any sort of critical tone in them.
No, actually I learned a lesson that./ readers do not read past the first line of any post. The message actually was about how we Canadians are not wonderful and if we think we are better, we will end up doing stuff which our American cousins are not so proud of. And immediately I got hammered to the ground for a spelling mistake. Quite a sad lesson. And totally unexpected one. It was an indefensible position indeed, except it was my spelling Nazi attackers who were in it.
Well, the weight of your totally unsupported rhetoric
I am indeed too lazy to go around looking for all those articles I read over the years and present a pleasing to the eye arrangement of hyperlinks on a silver platter for your enjoyment. But I will advise looking for an instance where a tv progarm was cancelled due to "viewer ratings" and the company furnishing them was not Nielsen. This excercise should be quite enlightening.
Curiously enough, the "advertising business" which is totally oblivious to the wants of the ideological masters of TV and is only interested in most effectively peddling their client's wares, is concerned. Also it looks like the media themselves are begginning to get unhappy with Nielsen too. It appears they didnt get the numbers they wanted cooked, but the numbers Nielsen fucked up cooking. And they are missing all white males from the sample, which is a bummer for advertisers. It looks like Nielsen was getting cavalier and too secure in its abusive position. Note howerver the amusing self-defating insistance on making sure Nielsen stays a monopoly, albeit a somewhat regulated one.
"We dont want two sets of numbers!" Oh my, that would be terrible, they would have to go and reconcile them! And maybe even get a third sample to get the whole picture and avoid errors! Way too complicated to manipulate effectively to your own ends. Single "sample" it is then.
This would sound plausible if it were not for the fact that the very investment was decreasing the value of all their other holdings, just by creation of an illusion of a possible merit to the SCO case. Thus by putting money down on infinitely small chance of SCO winning, they guaranteed fear and anxiety among investors of all their other sane assets. Not to mention that that sum of $50 million was a lifeline allowing SCO to keep slinging their mud.
The hedge theory falls apart at closer examination, and what remains is an uninformed, panicked, knee-jerk reaction of some pointy-hair managment clown who read with terror in "IT for Dummies" that SCO "owns linux" and thus he was "missing the boat". And the rest is history...
is vastly preferable to the bona fide, indisputable biases of the networks.
Actually I came to believe that Nielsen is part of that bias. Their true business is to be a mirror that tells the executive clowns of the various mega-media caterls exactly what they want to hear. Nielsen is a high-priced call girl, whose main job is to make her "clients" feel good about themselves: "Yes dear, you are sooo smart, that decision was brilliant! I am sooo excited!"
I see, so you are objecting to the message based on what a word in it was spelled like. I am afraid that I cannot compete with this, such clearly blinding fire of wisdom and logic that is your mind.
Forgive me for I have trespassed on the sacred ground of thought in English language, a field that is defended fiercely by truly fearsome Palladins: the spelling Nazis.
Yes, I misspelled one word in there. So be it, just more to the point of what I was saying. We are no better then the rest of the planet, spelling errors included.
For this monstrous calamity of an offense, I trust that my trial on charges of treason to the sacred cow of national superiority will be short and execution swift and merciful.
Stupid eh-hole, don't bask too long in the "glory" of the Canadian education system. Learn to spell richt.
Unless there is some witty, alas cryptic, humour here that I missed, my cautionary message about thinking oneself better then others based on nationality, race or social standing was totally lost on you it seems. As a matter of fact, replies like yours are what makes people start believing themselves superior.
You got it. Being a Canadian myself I would like to bask in the glory of us as a whole being smarter, better, more educated, more richeous etc., but...
Although it starts amongst joyous meadows and cheerful flowers, truly great evil this path leads to. Evil bearing names like Abu Gharib and My Lai.
So just note that it was Royal Bank who against all common sense invested in SCO in the first place. They are just now growing cold feet and preparing to run for the door.
As long as the networks feel they are getting accurate information from Nielsen, they'll keep reading it.
Yes, the same media companies who were trumpeting the WMDs and the "shock and awe" while the rest of the planet's media was going "What the fuck?!". Nielsen is just a part of a corrupt, lazy, self-absorbed and incestuous cohort otherwise known as the "Mainstream Media". The very fact that none of its clients are bothered by this dependence on a single company is the best evidence of their lack of interest in the actual facts. And you are a fool if you dont realize that Nielsen's ratings are the word of God as far as network television is concerned, focus groups my ass.
Which makes it not only useless, but outright dangerous. This one monopoly gets to make up numbers any way it sees fit and thus influence the direction of the mainstream American media. And since there is no functional independent verification, noone gets to be the wiser. Enter war loving neocons and we get a massive pile of "anti-terrorist" dramas and "Our GIs kick little brown people's butts overseas!" movies. All highly rated by Nielsen. This is just an example how this can be abused. Think under/overrating the Knoppel's showing the pictures of the soldiers killed in Iraq. etc. etc. Direction to be dependant only on the Nielsen managment's political affiliation.
Or were you trying to say that the Nielsen samples are not sufficiently random?
The problem with Nielsen's "samples" is that they are totally unverifiable. They could be getting them by transposing the results of the horse races and noone would be any wiser. If there were multiple "sampling" companies of equal stature, there would be at least chances of independent verification. As it stands Nielsen is a monopoly, and those are oh sooo trustworthy.
you'll find it rather difficult to offer a better alternative
Easy. Multiple competing sampling companies. Its called competition. Not to mention that chances of multiple independent companies faking numbers in the same way are much lower (barring collusion).
The main problem with Nielsen is that it is "the" unquestionable sampling company. I find it amusing that Diebold and their malarkey finds so much criticism here and Nielsen who are in almost the same boat (one would argue equally important since they control the media's view of its audiences and thus can greatly influence American culture and priorities) gets defended.
Just to let you know, Nielsen is one of the better scams of the universe. It produces next to random, unverifiable numbers and gets to charge kings ransom, plus it gets to decide direction of American TV. No competition. No credible verification. No regulation. No oversight. Ever growing stream of money and undeserved "prestige" (oh, just so fitting the race-to-the-intellectual-bottom enterntainment and the politco-propagandistic info-tainment industries).
This whole disucssion however is about splitting hair since one way or the other the only method to secure those boxes was to prevent any sort of booting from floppies or CDs in hardware.
I still say that repairing/hacking NT is more pain then a UNIX box since to get something Windows-like to boot that is able to recognize normal hadware requires much more then a floppy, but as I said, its an academic discussion.
Not really, all you need is a WinNT boot floppy with a few utils, none of the data is even encrypted.
What I meant is that it is harder to reset the root/admin password and/or install keyboard sniffers etc. And there is no such thing as a NT boot floppy, you mean a set of 4 uber-hacked disks at the minimum to get some sort of command prompt. NT is famous for being a royal PITA to repair from floppies, that is why there are bootable Linux CDs with (partial) NTFS support on them so you can at least try. Most people just pull hard-drives out and stick them into another running NT box in order to access them. In short, it is way more convoluted then a single floppy you can use to achieve that goal on most UNIX machines.
Not sure about SGI, but most standard UNIX machines can be rooted if you can get a custom boot floppy to boot so you can access the filesystem. NT is more difficult to compromise this way due to its convoluted/security-by-obscurity NTFS. That is not to say that NT is more secure, merely that this particular method is less useful.
It's been part of the law for ages. Take patent infringment for example. That is theft of an idea.
Theft doesn't require something physical.
No. You cannot. Simply redefining word "theft" to account for one's greedy attempt at profiting from something that is fundamentally not subject to the capitalist model does not make it real theft. Theft can only occur if a physical object is taken from you and as a result you are no longer in possesion of it. Thats it. No fudging, no but-ifs, no "alternate, modern interpretations".
Patents, copyrights and associated contortions and perversions of law are there because the "Intellectual Property" con-artists are adept at twisting the obvious so that the politicians and dumbfounded public go along with the scam. At society's expense naturally.
You can either waste billions of dollars on elaborate copy protection schemes which are all doomed to fail, or you can work to find a way to make unsanctioned copying irrelevant to your revenue stream." In the latter case, many new ideas are being tried. It will be some time before we find out what will work long-term.
...PBS stations all over the country have formed a viable business model on the assumption that the majority of viewers would be free-riders.
...If music isn't meant to be heard and shared -- to form a common cultural bond and experience
I noticed that you are approaching a point of view that I hold for some time now, alas without articulating it. Note that all of these answers and many, many, more solutions to the current legal and mental contortions introduced by the "Software Industry", sattelite TV broadcasts, etc. can be provided with a simple all-encompassing approach: information is not an object that can be "owned" and thus is not subject to the Capitalist model.
Information simply does not possess required physical attributes to be property. And as such it cannot be sold or bought. In this case the laws of Nature clash with laws of Capitalism. Unfortunately Adam Smith's model is unbending and unyelding as many rigid and simplistic philosophical systems developed in 19th century, with insufficient foresight. As some were short on understanding of the human nature (Marx), some others seem to fall apart when confronted with laws of physics.
Treating information as if it could be commercial property leads to all sorts of amusing perversions of law and to comical technologies, all designed to hide the very lie at their core. Only when our society finally understands this fundamental problem and abandons these misguided attempts will we be rid of this nonsense and associated political efforts to control the uncontrollable.
(1) Using emotionally-charged words is a standard tool of propaganda ever since the concept of propaganda was invented. Music "industry" (see? another misleading word) uses it and so do their detractors. Your point?
(2) See point 1.
(3) Price is only brought forth as an argument by people who did not think things through. The fundamenal cause is the fact that the whole process of "manufacturing" and "distribution" and "ownership" of information is a lie. Information is not an object that can have an "owner" and thus is not subject to a simplistic world-view concocted by one Adam Smith, otherwise known as capitalism.
(4) The whole idea of copyright is sheer lunacy to begin with. Discussing its length is like arguing over the type of brush you would use to paint the Moon green next Tuesday while standing on your porch. The fact that it is accepted as a de-facto "wisdom" is truly sad and depressing.
(5) Yes. And no, the author has no "right" to be selling "his" music. The only "right" he has is to perform the music he (or others) composed. If he can manage to get people to come hear it and they agree to pay at the gate, there is his source of income. If he is not good enough for that, he should get a day job. I will never get tired of saying that "art" is defined as a willingess to express ones thoughts and feelings in a way that others find it inspiring and moving. The very expression is its own justification and reward. It is not a "job", never you mind "industry". Art can be sponsored if it is particularly good and thus freeing the artist to pursue her creative urges. But it is not a business.
(6) Many "artists" (I use the term loosely since you seem to include all sorts of talentless commercial-jingle hacks in this) were mislead into believing that "art" is a career. That one can make a killing on it. Unfortunately its a lie designed by people who were in the business of marketing and distribution of their works. For a time it worked and was technically feasible. Not any more. Digital age has finally exposed the fundamental fallacy of "art as business" ideology.
(7) Neither one is a "business" model. Although one can make money around services based on free things, it is up to that person's business talents and other external conditions. Free stuff on the net is called Information. Information, due to its properties, is fundamentally not capable of being "owned" by anyone.
(8) Live performance and other equivalent labour can be monetarilly rewarded by the attending audience. Having the performance recorded once and then getting paid million times by having someone elses (fully paid for) equipment perform in your place, based on information embedded in a piece of plastic, is a form of fraud. Never you mind claiming that said piece of plastic is yours to control even though the sucker paid for it.
(9) You can easilly control access to live performances and thus ensure payment. You can sell t-shirts and all sorts of other stuff leveraging your name recognition. You can use your name recognition for advertising purposes. Thats capitalism. "selling" information that cannot be "sold" is a just con-artistry.
(10) You better believe it. Dissemination of information is not only my right, it is one of the most fundamental and un-alienable rights that trump most other gibberish that passes for "rights" and "laws" these days. Information = thought. And if you think that I will give up my ability to freely exchange thoughts and ideas so that a bunch if greed monkeys can get rich, you got another thing coming. While I understand that "capitalist" mentality is that "making profit" takes precedence over everything else in the universe, luckilly most of us do not subscribe to this lunacy.
(11) Noone can demand free enterntaiment. The consequence of information being not a "thing" that can be "owned" is that enterntaiment over digital media in exchange for payment is not viable. That is the logical downside of sticking to one's principles. Fortunately, the need for
then I cannot "own" my own DNA sequence!... millions of clones of me could not be made without my consent.
No you cannot since a "sequence of letters A,G,T and C" is not something that can be owned. The clone issue is a red herring since it deals with the way one can use that sequence and not with its ownership. It is making "clones" of humans in general that is immoral and illegal, not the control of the sequence itself. If it were otherwise, that sequence of numbers would be "yours" regardles if it happens to refer to the DNA, a new hip tune (encoded in base 4 code), locations of some stellar bodies, or parameters of a new engine design.
Slashdot Mirror
Our Egyptian linux guru had trouble translating this one. I however have a plausible theory that a proper translation is:
You insensitive clod!
Ok, ok, we get the message, Larry. You dont need to astroturf so vehemently. Or at least be more restrained, say, mention only 2 competitors at once in any of these completely spontaneous user testimonials, no?
No I dont. I remember grand press releases and boastful posturing coming out of SCO, not to mention Darl essentially using a megaphone next to the general public's ear at the time of Baystar/RoyalBank investment. Just about every major IT rag and quite few financial ones had a notice about it. And very few of them with any sort of critical tone in them.
No, actually I learned a lesson that ./ readers do not read past the first line of any post. The message actually was about how we Canadians are not wonderful and if we think we are better, we will end up doing stuff which our American cousins are not so proud of. And immediately I got hammered to the ground for a spelling mistake. Quite a sad lesson. And totally unexpected one. It was an indefensible position indeed, except it was my spelling Nazi attackers who were in it.
I dont know about you, but me, I got my schooling from the McKenzie brothers. Its a beauty, eh?
I am indeed too lazy to go around looking for all those articles I read over the years and present a pleasing to the eye arrangement of hyperlinks on a silver platter for your enjoyment. But I will advise looking for an instance where a tv progarm was cancelled due to "viewer ratings" and the company furnishing them was not Nielsen. This excercise should be quite enlightening.
Curiously enough, the "advertising business" which is totally oblivious to the wants of the ideological masters of TV and is only interested in most effectively peddling their client's wares, is concerned. Also it looks like the media themselves are begginning to get unhappy with Nielsen too. It appears they didnt get the numbers they wanted cooked, but the numbers Nielsen fucked up cooking. And they are missing all white males from the sample, which is a bummer for advertisers. It looks like Nielsen was getting cavalier and too secure in its abusive position. Note howerver the amusing self-defating insistance on making sure Nielsen stays a monopoly, albeit a somewhat regulated one.
"We dont want two sets of numbers!" Oh my, that would be terrible, they would have to go and reconcile them! And maybe even get a third sample to get the whole picture and avoid errors! Way too complicated to manipulate effectively to your own ends. Single "sample" it is then.
This would sound plausible if it were not for the fact that the very investment was decreasing the value of all their other holdings, just by creation of an illusion of a possible merit to the SCO case. Thus by putting money down on infinitely small chance of SCO winning, they guaranteed fear and anxiety among investors of all their other sane assets. Not to mention that that sum of $50 million was a lifeline allowing SCO to keep slinging their mud.
The hedge theory falls apart at closer examination, and what remains is an uninformed, panicked, knee-jerk reaction of some pointy-hair managment clown who read with terror in "IT for Dummies" that SCO "owns linux" and thus he was "missing the boat". And the rest is history...
Is that a sword or a toilet plunger you are holding, Sir Knight? Herr Knight?
How does one address a spelling Nazi exactly?
Actually I came to believe that Nielsen is part of that bias. Their true business is to be a mirror that tells the executive clowns of the various mega-media caterls exactly what they want to hear. Nielsen is a high-priced call girl, whose main job is to make her "clients" feel good about themselves: "Yes dear, you are sooo smart, that decision was brilliant! I am sooo excited!"
I see, so you are objecting to the message based on what a word in it was spelled like. I am afraid that I cannot compete with this, such clearly blinding fire of wisdom and logic that is your mind.
Forgive me for I have trespassed on the sacred ground of thought in English language, a field that is defended fiercely by truly fearsome Palladins: the spelling Nazis.
Yes, I misspelled one word in there. So be it, just more to the point of what I was saying. We are no better then the rest of the planet, spelling errors included.
For this monstrous calamity of an offense, I trust that my trial on charges of treason to the sacred cow of national superiority will be short and execution swift and merciful.
Unless there is some witty, alas cryptic, humour here that I missed, my cautionary message about thinking oneself better then others based on nationality, race or social standing was totally lost on you it seems. As a matter of fact, replies like yours are what makes people start believing themselves superior.
Although it starts amongst joyous meadows and cheerful flowers, truly great evil this path leads to. Evil bearing names like Abu Gharib and My Lai.
So just note that it was Royal Bank who against all common sense invested in SCO in the first place. They are just now growing cold feet and preparing to run for the door.
Yes, the same media companies who were trumpeting the WMDs and the "shock and awe" while the rest of the planet's media was going "What the fuck?!". Nielsen is just a part of a corrupt, lazy, self-absorbed and incestuous cohort otherwise known as the "Mainstream Media". The very fact that none of its clients are bothered by this dependence on a single company is the best evidence of their lack of interest in the actual facts. And you are a fool if you dont realize that Nielsen's ratings are the word of God as far as network television is concerned, focus groups my ass.
Which makes it not only useless, but outright dangerous. This one monopoly gets to make up numbers any way it sees fit and thus influence the direction of the mainstream American media. And since there is no functional independent verification, noone gets to be the wiser. Enter war loving neocons and we get a massive pile of "anti-terrorist" dramas and "Our GIs kick little brown people's butts overseas!" movies. All highly rated by Nielsen. This is just an example how this can be abused. Think under/overrating the Knoppel's showing the pictures of the soldiers killed in Iraq. etc. etc. Direction to be dependant only on the Nielsen managment's political affiliation.
The problem with Nielsen's "samples" is that they are totally unverifiable. They could be getting them by transposing the results of the horse races and noone would be any wiser. If there were multiple "sampling" companies of equal stature, there would be at least chances of independent verification. As it stands Nielsen is a monopoly, and those are oh sooo trustworthy.
Easy. Multiple competing sampling companies. Its called competition. Not to mention that chances of multiple independent companies faking numbers in the same way are much lower (barring collusion).
The main problem with Nielsen is that it is "the" unquestionable sampling company. I find it amusing that Diebold and their malarkey finds so much criticism here and Nielsen who are in almost the same boat (one would argue equally important since they control the media's view of its audiences and thus can greatly influence American culture and priorities) gets defended.
Just to let you know, Nielsen is one of the better scams of the universe. It produces next to random, unverifiable numbers and gets to charge kings ransom, plus it gets to decide direction of American TV. No competition. No credible verification. No regulation. No oversight. Ever growing stream of money and undeserved "prestige" (oh, just so fitting the race-to-the-intellectual-bottom enterntainment and the politco-propagandistic info-tainment industries).
What a racket!
Well, thats a bootable CD not a floppy.
This whole disucssion however is about splitting hair since one way or the other the only method to secure those boxes was to prevent any sort of booting from floppies or CDs in hardware.
I still say that repairing/hacking NT is more pain then a UNIX box since to get something Windows-like to boot that is able to recognize normal hadware requires much more then a floppy, but as I said, its an academic discussion.
What I meant is that it is harder to reset the root/admin password and/or install keyboard sniffers etc. And there is no such thing as a NT boot floppy, you mean a set of 4 uber-hacked disks at the minimum to get some sort of command prompt. NT is famous for being a royal PITA to repair from floppies, that is why there are bootable Linux CDs with (partial) NTFS support on them so you can at least try. Most people just pull hard-drives out and stick them into another running NT box in order to access them. In short, it is way more convoluted then a single floppy you can use to achieve that goal on most UNIX machines.
Not sure about SGI, but most standard UNIX machines can be rooted if you can get a custom boot floppy to boot so you can access the filesystem. NT is more difficult to compromise this way due to its convoluted/security-by-obscurity NTFS. That is not to say that NT is more secure, merely that this particular method is less useful.
It's been part of the law for ages. Take patent infringment for example. That is theft of an idea.
Theft doesn't require something physical.
No. You cannot. Simply redefining word "theft" to account for one's greedy attempt at profiting from something that is fundamentally not subject to the capitalist model does not make it real theft. Theft can only occur if a physical object is taken from you and as a result you are no longer in possesion of it. Thats it. No fudging, no but-ifs, no "alternate, modern interpretations".
Patents, copyrights and associated contortions and perversions of law are there because the "Intellectual Property" con-artists are adept at twisting the obvious so that the politicians and dumbfounded public go along with the scam. At society's expense naturally.
...PBS stations all over the country have formed a viable business model on the assumption that the majority of viewers would be free-riders.
...If music isn't meant to be heard and shared -- to form a common cultural bond and experience
I noticed that you are approaching a point of view that I hold for some time now, alas without articulating it. Note that all of these answers and many, many, more solutions to the current legal and mental contortions introduced by the "Software Industry", sattelite TV broadcasts, etc. can be provided with a simple all-encompassing approach: information is not an object that can be "owned" and thus is not subject to the Capitalist model.
Information simply does not possess required physical attributes to be property. And as such it cannot be sold or bought. In this case the laws of Nature clash with laws of Capitalism. Unfortunately Adam Smith's model is unbending and unyelding as many rigid and simplistic philosophical systems developed in 19th century, with insufficient foresight. As some were short on understanding of the human nature (Marx), some others seem to fall apart when confronted with laws of physics.
Treating information as if it could be commercial property leads to all sorts of amusing perversions of law and to comical technologies, all designed to hide the very lie at their core. Only when our society finally understands this fundamental problem and abandons these misguided attempts will we be rid of this nonsense and associated political efforts to control the uncontrollable.
(2) See point 1.
(3) Price is only brought forth as an argument by people who did not think things through. The fundamenal cause is the fact that the whole process of "manufacturing" and "distribution" and "ownership" of information is a lie. Information is not an object that can have an "owner" and thus is not subject to a simplistic world-view concocted by one Adam Smith, otherwise known as capitalism.
(4) The whole idea of copyright is sheer lunacy to begin with. Discussing its length is like arguing over the type of brush you would use to paint the Moon green next Tuesday while standing on your porch. The fact that it is accepted as a de-facto "wisdom" is truly sad and depressing.
(5) Yes. And no, the author has no "right" to be selling "his" music. The only "right" he has is to perform the music he (or others) composed. If he can manage to get people to come hear it and they agree to pay at the gate, there is his source of income. If he is not good enough for that, he should get a day job. I will never get tired of saying that "art" is defined as a willingess to express ones thoughts and feelings in a way that others find it inspiring and moving. The very expression is its own justification and reward. It is not a "job", never you mind "industry". Art can be sponsored if it is particularly good and thus freeing the artist to pursue her creative urges. But it is not a business.
(6) Many "artists" (I use the term loosely since you seem to include all sorts of talentless commercial-jingle hacks in this) were mislead into believing that "art" is a career. That one can make a killing on it. Unfortunately its a lie designed by people who were in the business of marketing and distribution of their works. For a time it worked and was technically feasible. Not any more. Digital age has finally exposed the fundamental fallacy of "art as business" ideology.
(7) Neither one is a "business" model. Although one can make money around services based on free things, it is up to that person's business talents and other external conditions. Free stuff on the net is called Information. Information, due to its properties, is fundamentally not capable of being "owned" by anyone.
(8) Live performance and other equivalent labour can be monetarilly rewarded by the attending audience. Having the performance recorded once and then getting paid million times by having someone elses (fully paid for) equipment perform in your place, based on information embedded in a piece of plastic, is a form of fraud. Never you mind claiming that said piece of plastic is yours to control even though the sucker paid for it.
(9) You can easilly control access to live performances and thus ensure payment. You can sell t-shirts and all sorts of other stuff leveraging your name recognition. You can use your name recognition for advertising purposes. Thats capitalism. "selling" information that cannot be "sold" is a just con-artistry.
(10) You better believe it. Dissemination of information is not only my right, it is one of the most fundamental and un-alienable rights that trump most other gibberish that passes for "rights" and "laws" these days. Information = thought. And if you think that I will give up my ability to freely exchange thoughts and ideas so that a bunch if greed monkeys can get rich, you got another thing coming. While I understand that "capitalist" mentality is that "making profit" takes precedence over everything else in the universe, luckilly most of us do not subscribe to this lunacy.
(11) Noone can demand free enterntaiment. The consequence of information being not a "thing" that can be "owned" is that enterntaiment over digital media in exchange for payment is not viable. That is the logical downside of sticking to one's principles. Fortunately, the need for
No you cannot since a "sequence of letters A,G,T and C" is not something that can be owned. The clone issue is a red herring since it deals with the way one can use that sequence and not with its ownership. It is making "clones" of humans in general that is immoral and illegal, not the control of the sequence itself. If it were otherwise, that sequence of numbers would be "yours" regardles if it happens to refer to the DNA, a new hip tune (encoded in base 4 code), locations of some stellar bodies, or parameters of a new engine design.