The problem is that the ultra-libertarian framework does not encompass most tort actions, and of course you concede this when you say "will not be punishable".
You might want to consider where, exactly, it leaves those precious private property rights if you can't defend those rights against the non-aggressive (but still tortious) acts of others.
What if, for example, my negligence damages your property through fire, flood, pollution, stampeding animals? Don't you think this is a teensy weensy problem? Isn't it odd how the zillion page tract you linked to doesn't even think to discuss this?
no, it means that if you write a song which sounds like one of the songs you own the sheet music for, you'll have a hard job proving you didn't copy it.
and if you've seen proprietary source code for (say) Microsoft Word it makes it difficult for you to write code to (say) open a Word document. Any allegation of copyright violation will be much more difficult to defend.
please explain how you think 250 million people could live meaningful lives without some form of state. Without a legal system and enforcement mechanisms protecting private property rights then *nobody* would be able to own any property. That's not freedom - it's the very opposite of freedom.
And the analogy with shareholders doesn't work. I own a few thousand shares in IBM. Does that give me control of IBM's headquarters? Of course the answer is that it gives me the same kind of control of IBM's headquarters that my one vote in an election gives me over government property.
ideas aren't covered by copyright, only expression of ideas. So if you copied their paper you would be breaching google's copyright, but if you created a filesystem using the ideas in the paper you would not.
"Basically, no matter what you add to a source (whether it be a cut of gel or that blue coating on those "Full Spectrum" lamps), all you're doing is *removing* wavelengths of light."
true when it comes to filters, but not true generally. Coatings can be added (e.g. of phosphor) which absorb light of one frequency and emit light of another. Most white LEDs, for example, are blue LEDs with a phosphor coating.
The mess in Florida was caused by machine-readable punchcard ballots. Which election are you talking about?
The UK has always had paper-and-pencil, ballots which are manually counted under the supervision of candidates' representatives. Accuracy after repeated recounts is such that, even when elections have been lost by a handful of votes, the results haven't been challenged by the losers.
What on earth is the point of mechanical counting?
Do you really think illiteracy and ill health in the developing world is caused by a lack of *information*?
It's more to do with a lack of physical communication (roads), rule of law, trained personnel, safe drinking water, sufficient income that children don't have to work and any of a million things you and I take for granted but is unavailable to a depressing fraction of the world.
The most desperately dumb sentence in the article is "The only way to provide global education and health care services in coming decades at reasonable cost and broad coverage is via space-based communication systems". You get the feeling these guys have a deep knowledge of how to provide primary education and healthcare.
I agree that if the elevator is perfectly stiff then climbing up will "push" on the earth and leave the counterweight in place.
But the material the elevator is made from can't possible be perfectly stiff (nothing is). So at least some of the force exerted by someone climbing the elevator will pull the counterweight down towards the earth.
thanks for (unlike the others) at least trying to answer the question. But I don't think your answers pan out:
1. transporting the energy up the structure means lifting fuel in the elevator, and if I'm right this will pull the counterweight earthwards meaning you need to burn fuel to get the fuel up...
2. I agree you save because there's no net movement of the vehicle carrying the fuel, but this is hardly a spectacular saving.
3. the flaw in your argument is that most of the mass of the shuttle and other rockets is fuel
sorry, but that doesn't answer my question. This isn't like a satellite in geocentric orbit because it will be pulled down by anything climbing the elevator.
OK. You set up the "elevator" tethered to the Earth, with a counterweight at the other end.
When you exert a force on the elevator to climb up it, won't there be an opposite force pulling the counterweight down? What will keep the counterweight in orbit? If the answer is "rockets" then the elevator will be no more efficient than a rocket, and the whole endeavour is pointless.
"gated communities where the jews (sic) could feel safe"? Jews were forced into ghettos, first in Spain and Portugal in the 14th century, then throughout most of West and Central Europe. Jews were relatively free in Russia and Eastern Europe, until Catherine the Great forced them to live in a designated area (the "Pale of Settlement") which was reduced in size over the next two hundred years, creating appalling conditions.
"Jews were normally forbidden to own real estate, so they had to go into businesses like pawn-broker, or banker, where they frequently made people angry with them." Oversimplified and muddling time periods and places. How many Jews in ghettos in Eastern Europe do you think worked in banking?
"during this period that the jews developed the kosher laws, because they suspected the farmers of trying to poison them"? The kosher laws are thousands of years old
"And derogoratory terms (goyim == cattle)"? The word "goyim" is Hebrew for "the nations" and is used throughout the Old Testament. The slang, and often derogatory usage ("goy") is Yiddish and has its origins probably in the 19th century.
"And where they had to develop a thick skin, and an indifference to sob stories...which also meant an indifference to suffering by those who dealt with them" - a daft and slightly offensive generalisation
If I were you I'd be suspicious of whatever source you got this information from - it's so wrong as to look malicious.
I'm not aware of any religion which (historically or today) withholds its *core beliefs* and aggressively pursues anyone who tries to disseminate them.
a large part of the problem is that, instead of publishing and going through the peer review process, they announced their "discovery" at a press conference.
Oh, and you totally misunderstand the patent system. Your conspiracy theory is nuts.
You say you "do not see how this can be done". Well, it has been done.
Database rights in the EU are effectively a subset of copyright. Created the same way (i.e. automatically). Breached in the same way (i.e. by copying). Enforced in the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that the ultra-libertarian framework does not encompass most tort actions, and of course you concede this when you say "will not be punishable".
You might want to consider where, exactly, it leaves those precious private property rights if you can't defend those rights against the non-aggressive (but still tortious) acts of others.
What if, for example, my negligence damages your property through fire, flood, pollution, stampeding animals? Don't you think this is a teensy weensy problem? Isn't it odd how the zillion page tract you linked to doesn't even think to discuss this?
irrelevant. Look up the meaning of "tort" and try again.
no, it means that if you write a song which sounds like one of the songs you own the sheet music for, you'll have a hard job proving you didn't copy it.
and if you've seen proprietary source code for (say) Microsoft Word it makes it difficult for you to write code to (say) open a Word document. Any allegation of copyright violation will be much more difficult to defend.
point me to the bit where he explains how private court systems can enforce tort actions.
please explain how you think 250 million people could live meaningful lives without some form of state. Without a legal system and enforcement mechanisms protecting private property rights then *nobody* would be able to own any property. That's not freedom - it's the very opposite of freedom.
And the analogy with shareholders doesn't work. I own a few thousand shares in IBM. Does that give me control of IBM's headquarters? Of course the answer is that it gives me the same kind of control of IBM's headquarters that my one vote in an election gives me over government property.
ideas aren't covered by copyright, only expression of ideas. So if you copied their paper you would be breaching google's copyright, but if you created a filesystem using the ideas in the paper you would not.
Jeez, you've never seen the Searchers, have you?
"Basically, no matter what you add to a source (whether it be a cut of gel or that blue coating on those "Full Spectrum" lamps), all you're doing is *removing* wavelengths of light."
true when it comes to filters, but not true generally. Coatings can be added (e.g. of phosphor) which absorb light of one frequency and emit light of another. Most white LEDs, for example, are blue LEDs with a phosphor coating.
The mess in Florida was caused by machine-readable punchcard ballots. Which election are you talking about?
The UK has always had paper-and-pencil, ballots which are manually counted under the supervision of candidates' representatives. Accuracy after repeated recounts is such that, even when elections have been lost by a handful of votes, the results haven't been challenged by the losers.
What on earth is the point of mechanical counting?
so you're a virgin, then?
Pur-lease.
Do you really think illiteracy and ill health in the developing world is caused by a lack of *information*?
It's more to do with a lack of physical communication (roads), rule of law, trained personnel, safe drinking water, sufficient income that children don't have to work and any of a million things you and I take for granted but is unavailable to a depressing fraction of the world.
The most desperately dumb sentence in the article is "The only way to provide global education and health care services in coming decades at reasonable cost and broad coverage is via space-based communication systems". You get the feeling these guys have a deep knowledge of how to provide primary education and healthcare.
Jesus wept, is there nobody here with something even resembling a clue? You clearly haven't ever been "taut" high school level physics.
eh? How does unreeling a cable counteract a force? Do you understand my question?
I agree that if the elevator is perfectly stiff then climbing up will "push" on the earth and leave the counterweight in place.
But the material the elevator is made from can't possible be perfectly stiff (nothing is). So at least some of the force exerted by someone climbing the elevator will pull the counterweight down towards the earth.
thanks for (unlike the others) at least trying to answer the question. But I don't think your answers pan out:
1. transporting the energy up the structure means lifting fuel in the elevator, and if I'm right this will pull the counterweight earthwards meaning you need to burn fuel to get the fuel up...
2. I agree you save because there's no net movement of the vehicle carrying the fuel, but this is hardly a spectacular saving.
3. the flaw in your argument is that most of the mass of the shuttle and other rockets is fuel
sorry, but that doesn't answer my question. This isn't like a satellite in geocentric orbit because it will be pulled down by anything climbing the elevator.
OK. You set up the "elevator" tethered to the Earth, with a counterweight at the other end.
When you exert a force on the elevator to climb up it, won't there be an opposite force pulling the counterweight down? What will keep the counterweight in orbit? If the answer is "rockets" then the elevator will be no more efficient than a rocket, and the whole endeavour is pointless.
Presumably I'm missing something, but what?
I'm an IP lawyer and I think the "one click" patent is ridiculous.
I don't really care if it's "solid" under the US Supreme Court's daft expansion of 100 years of US patent law; the patent is still ridiculous.
almost every sentence in your post is wrong.
"gated communities where the jews (sic) could feel safe"? Jews were forced into ghettos, first in Spain and Portugal in the 14th century, then throughout most of West and Central Europe. Jews were relatively free in Russia and Eastern Europe, until Catherine the Great forced them to live in a designated area (the "Pale of Settlement") which was reduced in size over the next two hundred years, creating appalling conditions.
"Jews were normally forbidden to own real estate, so they had to go into businesses like pawn-broker, or banker, where they frequently made people angry with them." Oversimplified and muddling time periods and places. How many Jews in ghettos in Eastern Europe do you think worked in banking?
"during this period that the jews developed the kosher laws, because they suspected the farmers of trying to poison them"? The kosher laws are thousands of years old
"And derogoratory terms (goyim == cattle)"? The word "goyim" is Hebrew for "the nations" and is used throughout the Old Testament. The slang, and often derogatory usage ("goy") is Yiddish and has its origins probably in the 19th century.
"And where they had to develop a thick skin, and an indifference to sob stories...which also meant an indifference to suffering by those who dealt with them" - a daft and slightly offensive generalisation
If I were you I'd be suspicious of whatever source you got this information from - it's so wrong as to look malicious.
You are attacking a straw man.
I'm not aware of any religion which (historically or today) withholds its *core beliefs* and aggressively pursues anyone who tries to disseminate them.
a large part of the problem is that, instead of publishing and going through the peer review process, they announced their "discovery" at a press conference.
Oh, and you totally misunderstand the patent system. Your conspiracy theory is nuts.
compiling with other means is fine.
copying someone else's work isn't.
the difference is clear to me morally and economically, and I don't see why it shouldn't be legally.
You say you "do not see how this can be done". Well, it has been done.
Database rights in the EU are effectively a subset of copyright. Created the same way (i.e. automatically). Breached in the same way (i.e. by copying). Enforced in the same way.