Erm, residents of those two places are most likely to hate the French and the Taleban, respectively, not Americans. Time to update your stereotypes, there've been two wars since the last time you apparently checked in.
Those two wars haven't exactly made us a lot of friends. I'm surprised I even have to point that out.
Why is formalizing the status quo the cure for the status quo?
Well, if I understand the question correctly, it indeed raises a valid point -- that the political process is a poor way to run anything, even the process of de-politicizing something.
At the time the FCC was founded, a handful of courts were settling disputes between broadcasters by applying a "homesteading" analogy rooted in common law and the concept of first/continuing use of a given freq at a certain power level in a given geographical area.
Revisionist historians have pointed out that, in hindsight, it looks a lot like the creation of the FCC (and the attendant nationalization of the airwaves) might have been pushed into place precisely to forestall that legal trend -- thereby locking the ordinary person and small business owner out of the new field and consolidfating ruling class power.
Now, if privatization is carried out as merely a sham for finalizing this expropriation from early broadcasters (who are, admittedly, almost all surely dead now), then you would be correct to be cynical. It would, however, ALSO remain true that (in general) any private ownership is a better way to manage any resource -- but that overlooks the matter of justice in the face of expropriation.
That brings us to this -- the whole debate ought to be not about whether or not to privatize, but what is the correct way to go about it and why.
Why would any more bandwidth be made private? So only a few corporations can control our communications networks? Yeah, let's go with that.
Guess What?
Government ownership of spectrum is precisely what big corporations love. Their voice will be heard in government. Yours won't.
The whole point of property rights in any sphere is so that the property of the ordinary person may be protected by law. Making stuff "public property" just gives it over to the corporations, bureaucrats and political pressure groups.
That's exactly what has been the norm for spectrum for almost a century, with the result being a cartelization of mass communications that has strangled political diversity and imposed a homogenized, easily manipulated mindset on the American public.
Privateize that sh*t as much as possible, as fast as possible.
But also realizing that by taking away patents, you're taking away my freedom to earn money from my product as I see fit.
It is a misconception to assume that you have any moral right to forbid someone to do something that does not harm you directly.
Example:Stealing from your restaurant would be harming you directly.
Opening a restaurant across the street is mere competition.
Patents are like saying "You can't open a restaurant across the street from me because the government granted me the privilege of being the only business allowed to wrap hamburgers in paper and put them in sacks, which nobody would have thought of if it wasn't for my heroic innovation!"
So now it's just very cool. But if Microsoft applies for patent on it then it will be Evil Microsoft.
An accomplishment is an accomplishment. Taking away some of your freedom is taking away some of your freedom. There is no inconsistency in lauding one and condemning the other. This is not a difficult concept.
Obviously the prelude to a pro-snitch campaign.
You know.. "You don't have to be a ferret to help ferret out Intellectual Property thieves. Do the right thing kids. Do it for Britney."
I don't care what its called or how sweet it sounds....untill greed is checkmated... there is no formula... only illusion and dillusion..
Well, here's another angle(s) on that...
"Greed" is a subjective label for some aspects of human nature -- and human nature is basically timeless.
Likewise, financial markets are inately not perfectly predictable -- because they are the result of the choices people make and people are not perfectly predictable in the choices they make.
General patterns can be discerned in large groups most of the time -- but there is always the possibility of surprise. This is comparable to the macro-level supposed predictability that classical physics asserted back in its day, and how that can most easily be seen to break down into chaos at the micro-level of individual quantum particles.
So, sure, we're not likely to get rid of "greed" and markets will remain unpredictable. That's just the way it is. Assertions of a causal link between the two are not entirely clear, though.
Indeed, as markets are an example of individuals engaging in purposeful action to attempt to satisfy their natural acquisitiveness ("greed" being perhaps best, if still somewhat murkily, defined as an exaggerated case of that natural acquisitiveness that someone else finds offensive), then without "greed" or its precursor, there would be no market to predict. No one would bother to engage in buying and selling if they weren't hoping to somehow better themself from the activity (or better something else they care about -- like say if I bought an annuity to help fund my favorite non-profit group).
-1 Offtopic? That's an excellent example of why you're going to continue to get bills like this shoved up your ass by the Democrats and Republicans -- public school and Big Media brainwashing works.
And how would that help? Libertarians love to suck up to big business.
Not the real ones. The rise of corporate power has paralleled the rise of government power. There's a reason for that -- a causal relationship, in fact.
The whole idea of GPL is to force people into developing free software by making everything that touches the GPL to become GPL.
Not so fast...
"Touches the GPL" is not quite right. "CONTAINS GPL'd code" would be more accurate.
The GPL rests on the right of copyright holders to license their work on their own terms. Your original statement implies the GPL is some way to cheat proprietary software businesses out of their code, for the community to use some sort of fancy legal fiction to take from the software industry that which the community has not earned.
In reality, the opposite is true. One can use GPL'd code as a platform and even bundle it with ones own proprietary software, all without incurring any obligation to open up your proprietary code. You simply may not incorporate it INTO your proprietary code -- because doing so is reneging on the terms of "payment" for your licensure of the GPL'd code (and a paltry payment at that -- mere cooperation).
Attacking the GPL is, ultimately, an assertion of a mythical right to commit fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm, residents of those two places are most likely to hate the French and the Taleban, respectively, not Americans. Time to update your stereotypes, there've been two wars since the last time you apparently checked in.
Those two wars haven't exactly made us a lot of friends. I'm surprised I even have to point that out.
Why is formalizing the status quo the cure for the status quo?
Well, if I understand the question correctly, it indeed raises a valid point -- that the political process is a poor way to run anything, even the process of de-politicizing something.
At the time the FCC was founded, a handful of courts were settling disputes between broadcasters by applying a "homesteading" analogy rooted in common law and the concept of first/continuing use of a given freq at a certain power level in a given geographical area.
Revisionist historians have pointed out that, in hindsight, it looks a lot like the creation of the FCC (and the attendant nationalization of the airwaves) might have been pushed into place precisely to forestall that legal trend -- thereby locking the ordinary person and small business owner out of the new field and consolidfating ruling class power.
Now, if privatization is carried out as merely a sham for finalizing this expropriation from early broadcasters (who are, admittedly, almost all surely dead now), then you would be correct to be cynical. It would, however, ALSO remain true that (in general) any private ownership is a better way to manage any resource -- but that overlooks the matter of justice in the face of expropriation.
That brings us to this -- the whole debate ought to be not about whether or not to privatize, but what is the correct way to go about it and why.
Why would any more bandwidth be made private? So only a few corporations can control our communications networks? Yeah, let's go with that.
Guess What?
Government ownership of spectrum is precisely what big corporations love. Their voice will be heard in government. Yours won't.
The whole point of property rights in any sphere is so that the property of the ordinary person may be protected by law. Making stuff "public property" just gives it over to the corporations, bureaucrats and political pressure groups.
That's exactly what has been the norm for spectrum for almost a century, with the result being a cartelization of mass communications that has strangled political diversity and imposed a homogenized, easily manipulated mindset on the American public.
Privateize that sh*t as much as possible, as fast as possible.
But also realizing that by taking away patents, you're taking away my freedom to earn money from my product as I see fit.
It is a misconception to assume that you have any moral right to forbid someone to do something that does not harm you directly.
Example:Stealing from your restaurant would be harming you directly.
Opening a restaurant across the street is mere competition.
Patents are like saying "You can't open a restaurant across the street from me because the government granted me the privilege of being the only business allowed to wrap hamburgers in paper and put them in sacks, which nobody would have thought of if it wasn't for my heroic innovation!"
So now it's just very cool. But if Microsoft applies for patent on it then it will be Evil Microsoft.
An accomplishment is an accomplishment.
Taking away some of your freedom is taking away some of your freedom.
There is no inconsistency in lauding one and condemning the other.
This is not a difficult concept.
So do we like Mircosoft now or what?
Sometimes flowers grow in a pile of sh*t. That's no reason to go swim in a cesspool, but the wise man will still acknowledge the flower.
Ahhh.... SCO licenses...
The toilet paper of choice for those who don't find $20 bills ostentatious enough for the task.
Do they come in two-ply?
Obviously the prelude to a pro-snitch campaign. You know.. "You don't have to be a ferret to help ferret out Intellectual Property thieves. Do the right thing kids. Do it for Britney."
This will never work. Not because it's impossible or inefficient, but because programmers will never submit to it.
Well, I agree -- but enough about the color scheme already...
I don't care what its called or how sweet it sounds....untill greed is checkmated... there is no formula... only illusion and dillusion..
Well, here's another angle(s) on that...
"Greed" is a subjective label for some aspects of human nature -- and human nature is basically timeless.
Likewise, financial markets are inately not perfectly predictable -- because they are the result of the choices people make and people are not perfectly predictable in the choices they make.
General patterns can be discerned in large groups most of the time -- but there is always the possibility of surprise. This is comparable to the macro-level supposed predictability that classical physics asserted back in its day, and how that can most easily be seen to break down into chaos at the micro-level of individual quantum particles.
So, sure, we're not likely to get rid of "greed" and markets will remain unpredictable. That's just the way it is. Assertions of a causal link between the two are not entirely clear, though.
Indeed, as markets are an example of individuals engaging in purposeful action to attempt to satisfy their natural acquisitiveness ("greed" being perhaps best, if still somewhat murkily, defined as an exaggerated case of that natural acquisitiveness that someone else finds offensive), then without "greed" or its precursor, there would be no market to predict. No one would bother to engage in buying and selling if they weren't hoping to somehow better themself from the activity (or better something else they care about -- like say if I bought an annuity to help fund my favorite non-profit group).
VOTE LIBERTARIAN, Louisiana
When a child first learns to talk, one should not scold them for failing to immediately deliver fine oratory.
Sure, you can go that route -- provided you're okay with waking up one day to find a script kiddie in command of the 82nd Airborne or whatever.
A clear infringement. Have you notified the boys at Disney yet?
I'm offering a generous 67 cents and half a pack of generic menthols. I know -- more than it's worth, but...
It is, regrettably, quite difficult to outlaw attempts to comply with the law.
OMFG, ROFLMAO! Mod parent up, please!
VOTE LIBERTARIAN
-1 Offtopic? That's an excellent example of why you're going to continue to get bills like this shoved up your ass by the Democrats and Republicans -- public school and Big Media brainwashing works.
And how would that help? Libertarians love to suck up to big business.
Not the real ones. The rise of corporate power has paralleled the rise of government power. There's a reason for that -- a causal relationship, in fact.
Vote Libertarian
Oh, and, fp?
And this is why you don't use an Access database for a job like this.
The whole idea of GPL is to force people into developing free software by making everything that touches the GPL to become GPL.
Not so fast...
"Touches the GPL" is not quite right. "CONTAINS GPL'd code" would be more accurate.
The GPL rests on the right of copyright holders to license their work on their own terms. Your original statement implies the GPL is some way to cheat proprietary software businesses out of their code, for the community to use some sort of fancy legal fiction to take from the software industry that which the community has not earned.
In reality, the opposite is true. One can use GPL'd code as a platform and even bundle it with ones own proprietary software, all without incurring any obligation to open up your proprietary code. You simply may not incorporate it INTO your proprietary code -- because doing so is reneging on the terms of "payment" for your licensure of the GPL'd code (and a paltry payment at that -- mere cooperation).
Attacking the GPL is, ultimately, an assertion of a mythical right to commit fraud.
Thanks. I just hope they get the point.
Please excise these bad puns immediately. They are shear lunacy and I find they put even a sharp guy like me on edge.