(paraphrased)"There is no baby. She wasn't even pregnant.", was the way the lack of nukes in WW2 Germany was described, I think. There's just so many way to hide comunications. No computer required. For example: If you see somebody looking for a 1972 Ford Pinto in the classifieds, they're probably terrorists trying to hide a message. They plan on backing the thing into a building.
Most programmers are too busy sorting out all the licenses and patents to have any time for any technical mumbo-jumbo:-) A 15 line program might have a 25K license attched to it.
I really like the idea of shunning. I also advocate it. It's a vastly underused and seemingly misunderstood practice. It is so completely effective. It's available to everybody, cost free. I don't know if anybody can make profit from it, so it probably won't be used all that much. Too much money in traditional methods of behavior control, I guess. It truly is the only way to deal with bad behavior, if only because causes absolutely no harm. Something else I advocate.
You've just given up on laws for governing society.
No I haven't. Just this method of making and enforcing them. (Redundant)The law is no good when it doesn't apply to everyone, equally.(/Redundant) The whole world is surviving thousands of ridiculous legal systems. You took the Soviet thing way too seriously. And don't think the Russians are down and out in any way. They're constantly blackmailing the Europeans/Americans into giving them more money or they'll fire up Chernobyl(sp) again. As far as privacy goes, there just isn't any. You gave that up when you recieved a Social Security number. Our present system will not protect you. It will be up the voters to make any change. They're not putting people into office for that purpose at this time. Their minds are on Janet's titties. They'll talk to you about privacy during the commercial. Then they'll forget all about it when the next segment comes on. The rest are just trying to vote themselves a bigger gov't check or tax cut. "Give me convenience or give me death" seems so appropriate now. You're not up against the gov't. You're up against your neighbors. You, me, and they are the ones who allowed this to happen. A gov't, a person, a little kid, an animal will do whatever they can get away with. We're letting them get away with a whole lot right now. The best we can hope for is that everybody wakes up and says, "STOP...ENOUGH!"
I repeat. I have answered your question. YOU DON'T OWN ANY RIGHTS BEYOND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PRODIDED YOU! What... are you deaf? There is no natural right to property. What you are claiming is a figment of your imagination. You are wrong. There's nothing else to say in this thread on the matter. Or is this one of those trick questions that's unanswerable because this fantasy you maintain doesn't exist?
...but the fact remains that we ARE in Iraq. We should not leave anytime soon (most reasonable people can agree with that), since the entire thing would have been in vain.
That sounds too much like what was said about Vietnam. So now we must stay to save face. I guess we can look for another 25 years of this war(and all the resultant lies about how we're "winning", etc.) at least. I never dreamed that history would repeat itself so quickly. My bad. The time span between American wars has been pretty short throughout its history. The deeeper I look, I'm not sure if there ever was a time when the US wasn't at war. "Peaceful nation" indeed. I really do doubt that truly reasonable people are saying the war should continue. The people that beieve that it should continue have some kind of vested interest in it. Be it economical, emotional, etc. Their reasons for staying are highly suspect. Reasonable people won't have a voice in the matter. We all know that reason and logic and honesty have never, ever won an election. So it looks like the Hubble will fall, the shuttle will be replaced by an equally expensive, defective white elephant built by the lowest bidder that has massively underestimated the costs involved...Intentionally probably, just to get the gig. You won't hear me ever complain about Bush in particular. He's nothing more than a part of the long chain of similar people that have been voted into office. Any problems that the American government has can be quickly solved at election time.
At this point it does no good to complain about the extra money required for Iraq, since it's going there no matter what.
Not if the voters actually use their power and vote for people who won't spend the money on Iraq. Hmmpff...Like that's going to happen. Unfortunately, you're right about that.
This is not a matter of belief: If I make something I own it and I own all rights inherent in it. That's a simple statement of fact that is based in reality, not legislation.
It's based on your interpretation of reality. Not everybody agrees with you. It it were real we would have no choice but to agree with you, but that's simply not the case. That the sky is blue is reality..provable, actual reality, universally accepted by all. So you are merely expressing a belief, not necessarily reality that's obvious to everybody. I'm telling you that my copy does not belong to you at all. That's reality. The gov't provides you the control that you desire over my possessions. If that wasn't so, then reality would prevail, and you would have to arrange a contract to get paid for your work...as it should be. IP law is not any recognition of rights. It's a method of control. If what you say is based on reality then you need to back it up with actual facts that prove it. You have failed that completely. Reality is visible, touchable, verifiable, etc. Your statements are merely abstract concepts. There's nothing necessarily real about them. They are your beliefs.
Ah, belief. Then you believe in the wrong thing. You're telling me I should beleive in your god, religion, opinion, whatever. You don't need me for that. You have 51% of the voters on your side. You win...for now. You asking me to respond to your beliefs. I have. Your beliefs are mistaken. So there's your answer stated as simply as possible. If you don't need factual basis of rights and ownership to prove your point, why should I need any to prove mine? I have history on my side.
As computers become a tool to be used by corps & gov't against people, the hacker ethic is more important than ever. It will be the only way to watch the watchers.
Why do you call them clueless? They're coming out way ahead of the game. Crooked, maybe, greedy, possibly, but clueless, not. The clueless ones are the people who voted for them.
"There oughta be a law" won't help much here. First, there will be too many loopholes to make it effective. Second, big companies that would violate this law would just consider the fines as part of doing business. Rather than worrying about where my info goes, I'm more concerned about how it's used. All the spammers and governments and corporations in the world already have your credit card info. This won't change anything. Copyright law won't protect you from the corporations. Copyright law exists to protect the corporations from you (There's a Soviet joke in there somewhere).
If I create something, I won it, and it is impossible for anyone else to own it. IF you disagree, please explain the mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.
Redundant(on my part): If you don't possess it you can't own it. You can only claim ownership if you are the sole possessor. You don't possess my copy. You own nothing of mine in any way. It's just too simple for you to understand, evidently. Once the idea(book, song, whatever) is out, it's no longer yours to control in any way. There are no inherent rights if we can't agree on them. For a right to be inherent, it has to be repected absolutely unanimously. An inherent right requires universal recognition. To you, it only requires 51% approval, apparently. I'm very interested to see how you would react if that other 2% turns against you. You'll probably start whining about the tyrany of the majority. To me being first is nothing more than being first. That deserves no special entitlements. I personally look for the best, not the first, but due to IP law, the best might not ever come into existance, so I may have to live with the first, possibly inferior product until the IP rights expire. Then somebody might be able to make necessary improvements to make the product actually usable. There's a long history of exactly that. I get paid only while performing work. The same should apply to you. If you want to get paid to write books, take out a contract with somebody or a group that needs a book. To get paid to play music, get out and perform to an audience. Your copies are nothing more than a resume or a demo, advertisement for your next project. That some are willing to pay for them, does not give you the right to demand payment or deny me my right to copy and share them. That is a government provided "right"(to demand payment). There's nothing inherent about it.
...then how can you explain how those people got their right,...
Uuuhhh...they organized?? They collaborated? they cooperated? Many ways to do that. They become stronger(mightier) than those who try to take their rights away. Pretty simple, huh? You can claim anything you want about inherent rights, but when the majority takes them away, how are you going to excerise them? If they take enough rights away, you better keep quiet about it lest you end up in prison. I'm not the one making spurious claims about inherent rights, so I'm not the one that's trolling here. You still have yet to explain how you have any rights to something you made yet don't possess(that wasn't forcibly taken from you). You have shown absolutely no basis for these inherent rights. You simply state that we have these rights without explaining where they come from, why they are so easy to take away, and why we should spend our lives fighting and killing people in order to keep them. If they were inherent, we wouldn't have to fight and kill to keep them. We wouldn't be constantly watching our backs to propect them. Only though superior strength can you protect and excerise your rights. Otherwise they simply don't exist any more than your arm would if it was cut off. Inherent rights mean squat when they are pulling your fingernails off, which seems to be perfectly okay to you if approved by that 51%. You can claim all the rights you want over something you made but no longer possess, and I can counter claim that you don't have any. The guy with the biggest gun is "right". You can continue believing all the stuff about that dog and pony show you call free and open elections if it makes you feel better.
I would think that our inherent rights would be self-evident.
Yes, and my "inherent" right to do with my possessions as I wish should also be self evident, but they aren't to you, so why should I believe what you say about inherent rights?
There's always good old pencil and paper...only works in sneakernet though, but it's extremely reliable and the only virus you have to worry about is the flu. One shouldn't be so dependant on these things just for convenience.
Don't confuse the police power of a democratic state, used to thwart illegal acquisitions via force or coercion, with simple possession
Like with the evil weed? Again you insist on clinging to this bizaare concept of inherent rights. It has everything to do with force, coercion, AND fraud. I suppose you consider any gov't you happen to agree with a "democratic state". Yet another fantasy. There is no such thing. All governments represent the highest bidder or the mightiest warrior. Even the good ol' USA. As it turns out, you're simply repeating your opinion, nothing more. You have yet to show the existance of these rights except through copyright law. Your rights are simply what 51% of the people say they are. That you are inside that majority makes no difference. It just makes your life more convenient.
You own the copy that you possess, nothing more. Otherwise it's like telling a person he is not allowed to plant, grow, and sell the seeds from the vegetables I may have sold him. He would have to buy from me because I'm the only one that's allowed to distribute the goods I make. He has no right to reproduce the vegetables from my seeds without my explicit consent. If I were part of the VGAA(Vegetable Growers Association of America) I would insure that only members of the group were allowed to distribute vegetables at all. I would demand a seed tax to cover the losses incurred by pirate growers. On another note, you have still completely failed to prove the opposite. Without copyright law or a contract, you absolutely no rights or attachments to anything you don't possess physically. Your cliams are based entirely on copyright law. The rights that you speak of are pure fantasy. Unfornately the consequences of your opinion and resulting actions are not, and the whole world(except the robber barons) is poorer for it.
I see no other way for ownership and the right to benefit from that ownership to be acquired by anyone else...
In your copyright induced fantasy world, you never will.
Exactly my point. What you are doing is claiming that what's mine is yours also. It doesn't work that way withour using coercion or force.
Call it property if you will, but it doesn't belong to you.
If I acqire an physical object without force and with the consent of the person I acquired it from, it most certainly DOES belong to me, no matter what the object consists of. Only with a signed contract could it be otherwise. When I acquire something, all strings are cut. I own it. I can do what I want with it. And if need be, I just might pick up a gun to protect my desire to do with MY posessions as I please, seeing as that you are so willing to use a gun(or pay someone else to) to stop me. 51% may call the shots, but it's been shown more than once that the majority can make mistakes. Sometimes the minority needs to remind them of that... with a little "persuasion" if necessary. Don't expect them to just lie down and enjoy it.
Slashdot Mirror
(paraphrased)"There is no baby. She wasn't even pregnant.", was the way the lack of nukes in WW2 Germany was described, I think. There's just so many way to hide comunications. No computer required. For example: If you see somebody looking for a 1972 Ford Pinto in the classifieds, they're probably terrorists trying to hide a message. They plan on backing the thing into a building.
Most programmers are too busy sorting out all the licenses and patents to have any time for any technical mumbo-jumbo :-) A 15 line program might have a 25K license attched to it.
I really like the idea of shunning. I also advocate it. It's a vastly underused and seemingly misunderstood practice. It is so completely effective. It's available to everybody, cost free. I don't know if anybody can make profit from it, so it probably won't be used all that much. Too much money in traditional methods of behavior control, I guess. It truly is the only way to deal with bad behavior, if only because causes absolutely no harm. Something else I advocate.
Thinking of governments per se is old school now...
Has been for a very long time.One of my favorite speeches. Should be read by all.
The average demographic of a hacker is a 14-18 year old male. That described half of my students.
Only half? If they were in high school, wouldn't the vast majority be between 14 and 18? Or was the other half female?
You've just given up on laws for governing society.
No I haven't. Just this method of making and enforcing them. (Redundant)The law is no good when it doesn't apply to everyone, equally.(/Redundant) The whole world is surviving thousands of ridiculous legal systems. You took the Soviet thing way too seriously. And don't think the Russians are down and out in any way. They're constantly blackmailing the Europeans/Americans into giving them more money or they'll fire up Chernobyl(sp) again. As far as privacy goes, there just isn't any. You gave that up when you recieved a Social Security number. Our present system will not protect you. It will be up the voters to make any change. They're not putting people into office for that purpose at this time. Their minds are on Janet's titties. They'll talk to you about privacy during the commercial. Then they'll forget all about it when the next segment comes on. The rest are just trying to vote themselves a bigger gov't check or tax cut. "Give me convenience or give me death" seems so appropriate now. You're not up against the gov't. You're up against your neighbors. You, me, and they are the ones who allowed this to happen. A gov't, a person, a little kid, an animal will do whatever they can get away with. We're letting them get away with a whole lot right now. The best we can hope for is that everybody wakes up and says, "STOP...ENOUGH!"
I repeat. I have answered your question. YOU DON'T OWN ANY RIGHTS BEYOND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PRODIDED YOU! What... are you deaf? There is no natural right to property. What you are claiming is a figment of your imagination. You are wrong. There's nothing else to say in this thread on the matter. Or is this one of those trick questions that's unanswerable because this fantasy you maintain doesn't exist?
...but the fact remains that we ARE in Iraq. We should not leave anytime soon (most reasonable people can agree with that), since the entire thing would have been in vain.
That sounds too much like what was said about Vietnam. So now we must stay to save face. I guess we can look for another 25 years of this war(and all the resultant lies about how we're "winning", etc.) at least. I never dreamed that history would repeat itself so quickly. My bad. The time span between American wars has been pretty short throughout its history. The deeeper I look, I'm not sure if there ever was a time when the US wasn't at war. "Peaceful nation" indeed. I really do doubt that truly reasonable people are saying the war should continue. The people that beieve that it should continue have some kind of vested interest in it. Be it economical, emotional, etc. Their reasons for staying are highly suspect. Reasonable people won't have a voice in the matter. We all know that reason and logic and honesty have never, ever won an election. So it looks like the Hubble will fall, the shuttle will be replaced by an equally expensive, defective white elephant built by the lowest bidder that has massively underestimated the costs involved...Intentionally probably, just to get the gig. You won't hear me ever complain about Bush in particular. He's nothing more than a part of the long chain of similar people that have been voted into office. Any problems that the American government has can be quickly solved at election time.
At this point it does no good to complain about the extra money required for Iraq, since it's going there no matter what.
Not if the voters actually use their power and vote for people who won't spend the money on Iraq. Hmmpff...Like that's going to happen. Unfortunately, you're right about that.
You've claimed that you own what I make. You havn't explained how that happens.
You may have sold or given it to me. That's all I need. Your question has been answered...many times. You seem to have reading comprehension problems.
...a large armed man asking for the password ("crossfire")?
"swordfish"
This is not a matter of belief: If I make something I own it and I own all rights inherent in it. That's a simple statement of fact that is based in reality, not legislation.
It's based on your interpretation of reality. Not everybody agrees with you. It it were real we would have no choice but to agree with you, but that's simply not the case. That the sky is blue is reality..provable, actual reality, universally accepted by all. So you are merely expressing a belief, not necessarily reality that's obvious to everybody. I'm telling you that my copy does not belong to you at all. That's reality. The gov't provides you the control that you desire over my possessions. If that wasn't so, then reality would prevail, and you would have to arrange a contract to get paid for your work...as it should be. IP law is not any recognition of rights. It's a method of control. If what you say is based on reality then you need to back it up with actual facts that prove it. You have failed that completely. Reality is visible, touchable, verifiable, etc. Your statements are merely abstract concepts. There's nothing necessarily real about them. They are your beliefs.
Ah, belief. Then you believe in the wrong thing. You're telling me I should beleive in your god, religion, opinion, whatever. You don't need me for that. You have 51% of the voters on your side. You win...for now. You asking me to respond to your beliefs. I have. Your beliefs are mistaken. So there's your answer stated as simply as possible. If you don't need factual basis of rights and ownership to prove your point, why should I need any to prove mine? I have history on my side.
As computers become a tool to be used by corps & gov't against people, the hacker ethic is more important than ever. It will be the only way to watch the watchers.
You have simply repeated yourself again without providing basis. You are stating you opinion, not any fact with any foundation.
Maybe somebody there used to work for these guys.
Why do you call them clueless? They're coming out way ahead of the game. Crooked, maybe, greedy, possibly, but clueless, not. The clueless ones are the people who voted for them.
If this spreads far enough, you're going to have to leave the planet.
"There oughta be a law" won't help much here. First, there will be too many loopholes to make it effective. Second, big companies that would violate this law would just consider the fines as part of doing business. Rather than worrying about where my info goes, I'm more concerned about how it's used. All the spammers and governments and corporations in the world already have your credit card info. This won't change anything. Copyright law won't protect you from the corporations. Copyright law exists to protect the corporations from you (There's a Soviet joke in there somewhere).
If I create something, I won it, and it is impossible for anyone else to own it. IF you disagree, please explain the mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.
Redundant(on my part): If you don't possess it you can't own it. You can only claim ownership if you are the sole possessor. You don't possess my copy. You own nothing of mine in any way. It's just too simple for you to understand, evidently. Once the idea(book, song, whatever) is out, it's no longer yours to control in any way. There are no inherent rights if we can't agree on them. For a right to be inherent, it has to be repected absolutely unanimously. An inherent right requires universal recognition. To you, it only requires 51% approval, apparently. I'm very interested to see how you would react if that other 2% turns against you. You'll probably start whining about the tyrany of the majority. To me being first is nothing more than being first. That deserves no special entitlements. I personally look for the best, not the first, but due to IP law, the best might not ever come into existance, so I may have to live with the first, possibly inferior product until the IP rights expire. Then somebody might be able to make necessary improvements to make the product actually usable. There's a long history of exactly that. I get paid only while performing work. The same should apply to you. If you want to get paid to write books, take out a contract with somebody or a group that needs a book. To get paid to play music, get out and perform to an audience. Your copies are nothing more than a resume or a demo, advertisement for your next project. That some are willing to pay for them, does not give you the right to demand payment or deny me my right to copy and share them. That is a government provided "right"(to demand payment). There's nothing inherent about it.
...then how can you explain how those people got their right,...
Uuuhhh...they organized?? They collaborated? they cooperated? Many ways to do that. They become stronger(mightier) than those who try to take their rights away. Pretty simple, huh? You can claim anything you want about inherent rights, but when the majority takes them away, how are you going to excerise them? If they take enough rights away, you better keep quiet about it lest you end up in prison. I'm not the one making spurious claims about inherent rights, so I'm not the one that's trolling here. You still have yet to explain how you have any rights to something you made yet don't possess(that wasn't forcibly taken from you). You have shown absolutely no basis for these inherent rights. You simply state that we have these rights without explaining where they come from, why they are so easy to take away, and why we should spend our lives fighting and killing people in order to keep them. If they were inherent, we wouldn't have to fight and kill to keep them. We wouldn't be constantly watching our backs to propect them. Only though superior strength can you protect and excerise your rights. Otherwise they simply don't exist any more than your arm would if it was cut off. Inherent rights mean squat when they are pulling your fingernails off, which seems to be perfectly okay to you if approved by that 51%. You can claim all the rights you want over something you made but no longer possess, and I can counter claim that you don't have any. The guy with the biggest gun is "right". You can continue believing all the stuff about that dog and pony show you call free and open elections if it makes you feel better.
I would think that our inherent rights would be self-evident.
Yes, and my "inherent" right to do with my possessions as I wish should also be self evident, but they aren't to you, so why should I believe what you say about inherent rights?
Why isn't there a movement to forbid corporate political donations?
Because Britney is going to be on TV. Shhh, you can tell me all about it during the commercial.
The question is, what can one do about it?
There's always good old pencil and paper...only works in sneakernet though, but it's extremely reliable and the only virus you have to worry about is the flu. One shouldn't be so dependant on these things just for convenience.
Don't confuse the police power of a democratic state, used to thwart illegal acquisitions via force or coercion, with simple possession
Like with the evil weed? Again you insist on clinging to this bizaare concept of inherent rights. It has everything to do with force, coercion, AND fraud. I suppose you consider any gov't you happen to agree with a "democratic state". Yet another fantasy. There is no such thing. All governments represent the highest bidder or the mightiest warrior. Even the good ol' USA. As it turns out, you're simply repeating your opinion, nothing more. You have yet to show the existance of these rights except through copyright law. Your rights are simply what 51% of the people say they are. That you are inside that majority makes no difference. It just makes your life more convenient.
You own the copy that you possess, nothing more. Otherwise it's like telling a person he is not allowed to plant, grow, and sell the seeds from the vegetables I may have sold him. He would have to buy from me because I'm the only one that's allowed to distribute the goods I make. He has no right to reproduce the vegetables from my seeds without my explicit consent. If I were part of the VGAA(Vegetable Growers Association of America) I would insure that only members of the group were allowed to distribute vegetables at all. I would demand a seed tax to cover the losses incurred by pirate growers. On another note, you have still completely failed to prove the opposite. Without copyright law or a contract, you absolutely no rights or attachments to anything you don't possess physically. Your cliams are based entirely on copyright law. The rights that you speak of are pure fantasy. Unfornately the consequences of your opinion and resulting actions are not, and the whole world(except the robber barons) is poorer for it.
I see no other way for ownership and the right to benefit from that ownership to be acquired by anyone else...
In your copyright induced fantasy world, you never will.
In the end, what's mine is mine.
Exactly my point. What you are doing is claiming that what's mine is yours also. It doesn't work that way withour using coercion or force.
Call it property if you will, but it doesn't belong to you.
If I acqire an physical object without force and with the consent of the person I acquired it from, it most certainly DOES belong to me, no matter what the object consists of. Only with a signed contract could it be otherwise. When I acquire something, all strings are cut. I own it. I can do what I want with it. And if need be, I just might pick up a gun to protect my desire to do with MY posessions as I please, seeing as that you are so willing to use a gun(or pay someone else to) to stop me. 51% may call the shots, but it's been shown more than once that the majority can make mistakes. Sometimes the minority needs to remind them of that... with a little "persuasion" if necessary. Don't expect them to just lie down and enjoy it.