There's no reason for these credit bureaus to still have my mailing address from six years ago. My car insurance company isn't allowed to keep data that far back...
I'm not a fan of credit agency business practices either, but I'm curious about this comment. Once a person (or company) (legally) acquires any given piece of information, I think they're allowed to keep it for as long as it's practical for them to do so. Credit agencies may only *score or report* on 7 years prior data, and insurance companies only act on 3 to 5 years prior data. I'm not aware of any requirements for either type of company to purge data older than their action windows. But I'm very open to correction...
Apologies, but there are several other items from your post I should address.
Seasonal refers to the natural periodic varation that occurs in the data.
Of course. As others note, we can use a variety of methods to acquire actual historic climate datapoints by analyzing and observing artifacts from various eras. Geothermal observations don't depend on us knowing daily temperature data from prehistoric times. We have gathered enough datapoints to, in fact, understand precisely these "seasons" of which you speak. There's also enough data to measure rates of change, and these rates of change are exactly what is addressed by the models from the study.
That's why the person who made this comment says the model may not be
Are you sure? Perhaps he/she is just a dogmatic ideologue dismissing contradictory arguments. We'll never know, and frankly, it doens't matter one iota.
Yes, I do. But that is of no consequence and has nothing to do with the OP providing evidence of his/her assertions.
As far as climate goes, its period is similar to geologic timescales, or in other words, thousands and thousands of years. We don't have thousands and thousands of years of climate data,
As others have already pointed out, we do actually have climate data. It's weather data we lack, and yes, there's a meaningful difference in this context.
That makes modeling changes fairly difficult, because you don't know if what you're seeing is just part of the seasonal effects or not.
According to TFA, the scientists took actual datapoints (likely more than just "tempature@date/time") and compared it against the results one would expect to see from enumerated causes. I'm curious to hear how they constructed their models, but if they seek serious consideration, I'm sure they can address your modeling concerns.
To expand on the concept of replying for other posters, I'll take the AC side:
Actually there isn't much to retort in this article, as it is nothing but a bunch of claims and name calling, without any suporting data.
The AC asked the parent poster for a detailed analysis of the study, not the Times article. And there is reference to a reasonable amount of data in the study. Prior to its peer review and journal publication, neither of us can assess the methodology, so it's nonsensical to dismiss it (or OTOH to canonize it.) The press on the study was interesting to me, and in general terms it sounds like a solid effort.
Well that statement is certainly true. But that is because it only goes back 40 years to the low point in a global cooling trend. If you go back 65 years you see no net warming, so who cares.
The observed temperatures may indeed be within normal cyclic ranges, but that's doesn't mean the observed rate of change is "normal" too. And it isn't.
Can we see the data?
I'm sure eventually it'll be published somewhere, as that's academia's bread & butter.
Becuase, if true, it would cettainly be a revelation, as this has not been true ever before.
All you can say, based on evidence, is that these observations have never been made, or that this type of analysis was never done. You can NOT scientifically argue that the conclusions were not true prior to this study.
Which is why this article was released, it is basically just a retort from this article http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/src -ncc020905.php which was from those wacky Europeans that everyone here says all are in agreement with the current global warming theories.
This is a dismissable ad hominem argument. The motives of the scientists involved in the study have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their conclusions. If the study followed solid scientific methods, they could be the leftiest lefty leftist tree-huggin' enviro-whacko business-hatin' agenda-pushin' hippies ever, but their conclusions would be right. If their science is flawed, they could be the same leftiest lefty leftist tree-huggin' enviro-whacko business-hatin' agenda-pushin' hippies ever, but their conclusions would very likely be wrong.
Appeal to motive is a logical fallacy that holds no weight with me.
There used to be an ocean in the middle of North America.
What the uninformed masses used to believe is hardly evidence of flaws in current scientific observations and study.
There are records that show thru out geo-history great freezings and greater warmings.
Yep. And analysis of these records yields evidence that humans have impacted the rate of recent warming significantly beyond former warming rates.
Yes, I know we have millions of cows releasing flatulants...but didn't we have millions of buffalo before we killed all of them? So that kinda balances out.
Uh, I'm going to ignore the whole cow-fart angle. It gives me gas.
Have we released green house gases. Yes. Have they had an affect. Probably....but when you read how black the skies were in London 200 yrs ago from all the wood burning and carbon emissions.
Yes, but don't you think the borders of London may have been quite a bit smaller back then? The population was magnitudes smaller, so the amount of black in the skies was probably not too significant compared to the collective output of greenhouse gases we currently have. I might be wrong, but I'm not.
And so although I believe there could be a global warming I am very skeptical about whether that is due just because of mankind or natural occurrences.
I'm skeptical that your skepticism is based on sound evidence.
How much peer review have these models been subjected to? What assumptions are built into these models?
From TFA:
"... the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal,.. "
We'll see if it holds up to review then. Who knows? My personal hope is that it does. If so, though, I don't expect it to sway the entrenched skeptics, who seem to consider ideology as evidence of scientific observation.
I find it hard to believe that the supposed intelligencia in the/. crowd can't grok the difference between tracking and modeling climatic trends and local weather events.
Simply put, predicting specific events is very hard, but tracking and modeling general trends is relatively easy.
I think what we have here with Devin Thompson is a kid with a serious mental problem.
Yes...so what connection does this have with gaming?
I think that there needs to be serious research into the abilities of people to separate virtual/conceptual from real.
You mean like the collective research that supports the fields of psychiatry and pyschology? In your post, you're basically describing schizophrenia, which is a heavily researched mental illness already.
Are you implying that we should study gaming as a potential trigger for sociopathic or psychopathic symptoms in subjects with latent tendencies towards mental illness? Or are you already prepared to assert the idea that gaming is a trigger, and thus we must monitor and control the gaming of those with latent and/or diagnosed mental illness? Is there research to support such an assertion?
If the tendencies are indeed latent (e.g. undetected), how do you identify who needs to be "controlled and monitored" with respect to gaming?
If we don't do this, things like this will happen more and more frequently and get worse and worse.
Are you saying that gaming, as an activity, is more likely to trigger violent behavior in the mentally ill than other activities, and thus should be singled out?
Schizophrenic subjects don't perceive reality the same way we do. Any real or perceived sensory input can trigger a violent reaction. I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that "violent" media have any greater triggering affect than, say, sitting alone in an empty room.
The people who fear video games do not fear alcohol. Why? They don't appreciate or understand the former, but keenly appreciate and understand the latter.
Where is this "public Internet" of which you speak? I'm only familiar with the usual one where independent, often private, entities make contractual arrangements with other entities to peer or purchase IP transit and various application services, over privately owned or leased circuits.
The Internet is public like a shopping mall is public, not like a city park is public.
BTW, who would you have enforce this license of yours?
Having just finished a long, occasionally brutal, tete a tete with the grandparent poster regarding copyrights etc, I can't believe I'm jumping in here. In a relatively sympathetic position no less...
There is *no* purpose in Slashdotters pondering this little mathematical tidbit. The law has no interest in it.
Does thinking critically about existing law serve no purpose? Does the law's interest supercede the interests of men in all cases? Just pondering.
I think "banned" in context around the parent poster's comments would be defined as "unlawful to publish, possess, or read in the US", as opposed to "ad hoc removal from library circulation in some public jurisdictions".
Mind you, I'm not advocating any form of ban, other than what a parent/guardian may decide is appropriate for their minor children.
With VoIP, things get a little more complicated. It's far harder to tell geographically where the caller is at the time.
True. There is no IP-based method for determining the physical location of an IP phone. There are kludges...
The best they could do, based on IP address might be from the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC databases, which may be the ISP address (in another city, or even country)..
It isn't even *that* workable. Searching by IP address has two fatal flaws. One, no PSAPs currently interface with carriers/VoIP providers using VoIP, so by the time it gets to a dispatcher center, the call is SS7/G.711 POTS e.g. no IP info is available. Two, even if PSAPs did interface with VoIP providers using VoIP, you have to back up a step to answer the question, "How did _this_ call get routed to _this_ PSAP?" The routing decision has to be made by the VoIP carrier prior the dispatcher even answering it. At that point, the dispatcher may trivially infer which "ISP" the call came from (i.e. the VoIP provider who routed it to him/her).
Or just provide the registered billing address of that VOIP customer. You call it from your phone while on vacation, and the emergency dispatcher thinks you're in another country. Clearly not brilliant.
In my experience, VoIP providers request a *service address*, not necessarily the same as the billing address, when provisioning a new IP phone instance for a customer. It's this address that gets passed to PSAPs.
The VOIP providers would have to employ call screeners who work out who/where the caller is before manually routing the calls to the appropriate emergency dispatcher, which causes potentially life-threatening problems.
SIP, the more popular VoIP call signalling protocol, describes a registration process for new IP phones on the network. This registration process could be modified to include the manual entry of a service address whenever the phone is booted. This address could then be systemically distributed to PSAPs as required. It assumes some user dilligence, but is more automated than many other techniques. Phones could even store a list of several service addresses, so users could quickly choose one (rather than retyping it on the 12 button pad each time.)
I must start by saying that with this post you have earned my respect, for two reasons.
First, you have convinced me, not yet to agree with your position, but to respect its viability. I grant you some fair points, but I still disagree with you on some key issues.
Second, I very much appreciate and respect the tone of your post. We, in our current and previous discussions, have dipped to pretty infantile levels of personal animosity over a difference of positions on IP. That's just not a good way to advocate for something, even if we are passionate about it.
Now, I'm willing to lay down my pen-sword and walk away from this discussion with a better understanding and respect for you and your position. However, because a promise is a promise, I will--at your option--continue to walk through your example. Let me know if you'd like to continue.
Let me first say that I'm getting worn out by this discussion too, and in that sense I very much welcome the simplification. However, on another level, I can't help but feel that this is a blatant attempt to dodge some very specific questions I've posed to you. Anyway rather than let you unilaterally frame the remaining discussion I have a brief expansion on your TV example:
A specific situation whereby a company B manufacturers a 100% copy of the TV set made by company A is valid and acceptable (as with potatos) and the only thing of concern to the consumer is if the set was indeed made by A or B or someone else. Again, mere shipping records are sufficient to determine that.
Okay. Let's say that Company A is DBA "Acme Electronics" and Company B is DBA "Acme Electronics". In your economic model this would be a perfectly valid practice, since company names are ideas and can be duplicated without "stealing" physical property. Let's also say Company A's and Company B's logos and sales collateral are 100% identical. Again, a perfectly valid business practice since logos, ads, fliers, etc are all 100% duplicable without "stealing" physical property. Finally, let's say that Company A did the actual R&D to create the TV and Company B acquired the design and material to make the 100% copy at no meaningful cost (much like downloading and then serving a copyrighted song online.) Let's say Company A charges $500 for this TV (creating enough profit margin to succeed but not enough to exploit consumers) and Company B charges $50 or nothing, since their costs are trivial.
Tell me again how Joe Consumer is served by this model? How does he realistically tell he's buying a "Company A" or "Company B" TV? Better yet, since from his prespective everything is 100% identical (except for cost) tell me why it would matter to him?
It's not all about the consumer side of the equation either. What return does Company A get for their R&D investment? A "warm fuzzy" doesn't keep anyone employed. Even if Joe Consumer were good-hearted enough to pay a 90-100% premium to Company A to reward their R&D effort, he would have to do a lot of due dilligence to figure out who was who because everything but some addresses are identical. Most times, Joe Consumer will not pay that premium anyway because good hearts fall prey to frugal souls quite often.
Tell me these answers and I will be happy to continue with yours.
And even that's not good enough, because the cable company might go down. I can't ever see any other provider having the redundancy and reliability that the current US phone system has, or any country's for that matter.
Well, I'm a network engineer/planner for a telco, and I can tell you that there's no magic behind our industry's power design. I'd be shocked (no pun) if the large ISP and cable players don't match it point for point.
Enhanced 911 Services, or 911 trunks to each PSAP in markets served by $VoIP_Company both solve this problem. Neither is manditory, but many providers offer it to achieve parity with POTS features.
E911 is not just for wireless anymore. Here's another good link:
All you have provided is misdirections, vague hints, ambiguous excuses worthy of a crook running for an office, innuendo and fancy footwork
Laughable. I've done nothing but dismiss one contextually-orphaned strawman after another. You're welcome to keep sending me more fodder though, if you like.
Only a small fraction (the least beneficial to society) of our economy depends on "branding, trademarks, servicemarks, and similar methods of" connivery...
And who determines relative "social benefit"? And, very specifically, tell me what this other largest fraction of our economy is that doesn't use IP in some way?
Not only did I present you with irrefutable evidence that healthy economic systems not dependent on this crap are possible (as they were in operation for millenia)...
Yep. And then I returned that evidence to its contextual origin, and explained how we have moved on from that era into a new one. And?
but the legal monopolies created by these aberrate laws are staunchly anti-free market since they represent extra-systemic interference by governmental bodies.
You mean the temporary monopolies granted to those who invested their creative and economic resources into creating something original to market? If you were more pragmatic, and argued that IP rights should be tightly limited to foster long term competition, we'd find common ground.
If you are serious about it, we can discuss in detail the anti-free market action of these ill-conceived laws.
Since discussing things with you is so is such a monumental pain, I'll pass. Thanks though.
The system I described is not only proven to work (by our history) but also avoids these market-distorting pitfalls.
You haven't described jack shit. You keep asserting "We could do without IP, because it's been done before" without acknowledging little things like the Industrial Revolution and its affect on how products are produced and distributed. You haven't once said, "This is how it would work now..."
And I wont even get into the disasters that await us if the "intellectual property" robber-barrons and their apologists (that means you) succeed in totally devouring Western legal systems.
Typical of your "Assert and Dodge" rhetorical style.
This example does not provide any imperative for "branding" of any sort.
Exactly my point!! It's an example of your beloved pre-Industrial Revolution economy where low productivity and slow distribution meant differentiation was largely irrelevant. That was very clear in the paragraph you quoted back to me. Good grief, I'm becoming more and more convinced you have a learning disability that prevents you from keeping anything you read in context.
By "branding" you seem to refer to simple attribution. Inventing new words in order to screw the legal system up is a classic example of the sort of activities "IP" proponents are up to.
Er, the word comes from the practice of branding livestock (property), but no matter. I'm referring to branding in the classical sense of a company distinguishing their product in the marketplace from competing products by using trademarked, servicemarked, and copyrighted names, logos, and sales collateral and advertising, e.g. using IP constructs.
I grant you that making sure that "widget A" came indeed from company "A" and not someone predending to be "A" is important... The only requirement in existance is that a product can be certified as authentically made by a company... Protection of authenticity (i.e. attribution) of products is the only thing required of a free market in this context.
There we have it! Argument over, and I win. You can't have it both ways. Either Company A may say, "Hey! That's our product (in design and/or manifestation) and Company B is marketing our product
Okay, to continue...and since you couldn't hold your wad until I completed my response I'll include my retort to your most recent reply here too. In all fairness, I accept responsibility for the loss of sync, since due to time constraints I haven't been very good about posting quickly.
We will come back to this as soon as you define "first art" that is "verifiable".
I've define first art well enough by now, and I'm using verifiable within its standard definition, look it up if required.
No we can merely translate the energy of air molecules into other forms of energy and use it to alter structure of some storage medium. "Sound waves in air" and "ordered motions of air molecules" are physically equivalent. One is actually defined as the other. "Sound" is defined as a sensory perception caused by vibrations of a bone in our inner ear, caused by the said "Sound waves". Note that other types of medium are possible such as water and solid materials, all capable of having their molecules vibrate in an ordered way.
Wow. My "big word" first definition of IP has nothing on this. You win the "let's derail a discussion by vomiting irrelevant minutia on a simple idea" award hands waaay down. I couldn't even begin to compete with this zen mastery.
My point was you could use a standard audio recording, if appropriate, as part of your evidentiary trail in claiming originality of a thought or idea. The physics of how energy acts in conjunction with physical entities to create such a recording is indeed interesting, but entirely moot in this context.
So you claim that we record the neural impulses from the inner ear receptors to determine originality!..Marvelous!
What a clumsy strawman! I did nothing of the sort. Obviously, I was just giving an example of possible evidentiary material for justifying a claim of originality. Mind you, such a recording must be dated and otherwise documented to be a complete claim.
... Now only if you kindly could explain what any of this has to do with funding arts or academia through grants and patronage instead of direct revenue...
My point was pretty fucking obvious. If you destroy the underpinnings of our current ecomonic model there will be no direct revenue or income for supporting patronage. Like it or not, our current economy is reliant on branding, trademarks, servicemarks, and similar methods of protecting product and service differentiation.
would suggest a particular emphasis on the impossiblity of conducting any business prior to introduction of "copyrights, patents, trademarks, and servicemarks" and how the whole of human kind lived in... since it appears that you are suggesting that no commerce could have occured prior to that and no wages could have been paid.
The world has moved on from feudal and agrarian economies where productivity and distribution was low and slow. Prior to the industrial revolution, product differentiation was not a factor since economies were largely local. If you went to the general store to buy corn, that corn was locally grown and was in a big bin labeled "corn". There was no branding and no need for it, because local demand was usually equivalent to local production, and even if they were askew, there was little to be done, because long distance distribution was a pretty difficult task.
As the Industrial revolution increased productivity and distribution speed, the concept of branding came hand in hand to fill a need to separate Paul's widgets from Peter's widgets. In an every-increasing global market, branding and advertising to differentiate became the norm. Companies had to have methods to protect their brands, products and services from being copied by competitors, and so IP law was born. In case it's not explicit enough for you yet, brands are IP, and are as essential to companies everywhere for market success. Without legal backign to protect
All right. I will ignore your first neat "definition"... and focus on the second:
That would be nonsensical and stupid, but I suppose you've got to wear the shoes that fit. I didn't change the meaning at all, I just dumbed down the wording because you whined about it. They're equivalent and interchangeable.
Ahem... "first art"?! Could you care to explain this? What do you mean by this exactly? First how? No part of it (I will for the moment ignore definition of "art") was ever present in the universe before?..
By "claiming first art" I mean "asserting claim of original work in accordance with applicable laws." The literal definition of art as "creative work" isn't remotely relavent to this discussion. In addition, the claimed work need not even be factually original, so "First how?" doesn't matter. For example: If you are the tenth person to manifest some given work, and none of the first nine people stated a claim of originality, then you could reasonably and successfuly claim the work yourself. However, in a case where you're the second person to manifest some given work and the first person has claimed it, if you attempt to claim originality, you would fail, and the other person would prevail. Clear enough?
From your own definition:... I only respond to your assertions.
I merely wondered what it was about that particular word, of the many in my definition, set you off on such bizarre tangents...
Unlike you, I happen to be in a rather comfortable position of not having to make anything up, in addition to having wee little things like laws of physics on my side.
You provide me with more than enough fallacy and folly to address without having to make things up. And the laws of physics are on no one's side of this discussion...
if information is not the "intellectual property"
No. What I said, clearly, was that "information *BY ITSELF*" is not IP. Information needs to be accompanied by a stated claim of originality, provisional to applicable laws.
what is the problem then with duplication of the information itself? Is it ok to make a copy of the information and just the representation is forbidden?
If the information IS NOT someone else's IP (i.e. information accompanied by a valid claim of originality) then duplicaion is not a "problem". If the information IS someone's IP, and they acquiesce or permit duplication, it is not a "problem". If the information IS someone's IP, and they don't permit duplication, then duplication is a violation of applicable law, and problematic to whatever degree the involved parties care.
Original? What is the threshold of originality required? 100% of the "physical manifestation" as compared to all the others? 50%? 10%? How do you measure it? The only measure known to me is information contents (i.e. comparing bits of data) but you just rejected that. Be specific.
If we all agree to be bound by rule of law, then this threshold can be arbitrated or litigated,on case by case basis or as a whole, by applicable governing bodies. We both live in nations where we are bound by rule of law, so this applies to both of us. Of course, we could choose to ignore this binding agreement if we accept the consequences of that choice.
I agree that comparing data, including the information and the accompanying claim(s) of originality, is a fair way to arbitrate disputed originality.
Not until you manage to come up with a way to measure "originality" in an unambiguous and scientifically verifiable way.
See the immediately previous point. Originality need not be measured scientifically if parties agree to be bound by law.
Otherwise your claim is just a wild assumption to be taken on faith.
I was merely asserting that only a minute number of thoughts throughout human history are original. For every "Here's what I'll call the wheel" thought
Oh for Pete's sake, why dont you throw in a few "time-space-fluxes" and "consciousness-matter methaphysical transforms" into your definition.
I'm sorry if the big words confused you. I'll simplify. In order for one's "thought" to become one's "intellectual property", one must do *both* of the following:
1) Manifest this thought in a way other's can detect it using one or more of their five senses; and
2) Claim "first art" in a verifiable and legally-defined way.
Again, *both* conditions must be met to turn a thought into intellectual property. Otherwise, it's either just one's thought or idea.
I am tired today so I will just point out some of the larger of the countless holes in your "argument".
I think you'd have better luck falling into a hole than consciously finding one in this argument. So far you haven't actually succeeded at doing either.
If your definition pertains only to "expressions" then the information itself is not part of it?
I don't know why you picked out the word expression to go on an on about...as you alone pointed out, there were plenty of others to choose from.
And, no. Information, by itself, doesn't constitute intellectual property. It must be manifested somehow, and it must be verifiably original to become intellectual property.
If it is then thoughts, being certainly a form of information would apply.
Nope. Review the definition again. There's no basis of originality to the VAST majority of all human thought. An almost infinitely small number of people seek any claim of originality for some meager number of their thoughts.
Say I listen to a song and then perform it myself exactly the same as the original (lets pretend I can sing that good). Is the song now being "xtemporaneous expression of my thought" mine? Are only the "expressions" "intellectual property"?
Well, if you heard the song then someone else manifested it first. Either they've claimed first art (verifiably & legally), so you have no claim of intellectual property, or they have not claimed first art. If the latter is true, under the law you may attempt and could possibly succeed at claiming intellectual property rights. That would be shady, unethical and immoral, but the law, ethics, and morality are not always in lockstep agreement.
Are only the "expressions" "intellectual property"? As in vibrations of air molecules? Not the information that they correspond to?...This is endless.
No one can verify the specific movement of specific air molecules at a specific time. So no, vibrations of air don't count as IP. But...we can record the audible "sounds" generated by those molecular movements, and that record can be used to make a verifiable claim to originality. If no one can verifiably demonstrate prior art, then the claim will stand. As you can see, verifiability, is as key to claiming IP as the information or expression thereof.
Without it, there can be no claim. You can scream "I made air vibrate in a unique way at [time/place]" or "I created magnetic fields that drove speakers that made air vibrate in a unique way at [time/place]" or *whatever*, until you're dead and bloated, but if there's no record of it, no one will much care.
They get them from all the same sources as they always did: taxation and private donations. The fundamental difference, which you failed to grasp, is that in that system it is possible to pay for art and science without having to have "DRM enforcing" anal probes installed in all citizens.
Businesses everywhere, be they corporations or privately-owned, rely on copyrights, patents, trademarks, and servicemarks to generate revenue. Wages and taxes are paid from revenue. Without income revenue, you have no donations from business. Without income revenue you have no wages. Without wages you have no private donations. Without income revenue you have no tax revenue. If you turn the faucet off, no water will come out the other end of the hose. Money doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Yippee, I have always hoped to run into you again.:^)
I seriously have to get myself a set of responses to this never ending drivel to cut and paste here.
That would certainly help people identify your rhetorical flaws more quickly.
The fact that someone "created" something does not constitute grounds for demanding payment. I spent time typing this reply in... cough up the money, you are reading it, are you not? I too spent time, energy and money (my internet service + my PC) for your "enjoyment"!
Context matters. If you provided your opinions on a pay-to-play blog you would be justified in expecting compensation. Since you provided it in a free forum, you have no justifiable claim to compensation. The act of creating something doesn't imply grounds for compensation in-and-of itself, but any binding agreements attached to the act of making it available to others would, if they contained terms of compensation.
These binding agreements may be laws, contracts or simply handshakes. I suppose it's reasonable to refuse to participate in any such binding agreement, if one accepts the consequences of ones actions.
Great! And what if I think a thought that someone thought before me! Oh shit! That means someone owns that thought and I am, as a part of my mind and soul is, someone else's property?
This argument ignores the fundemental difference between "thoughts" and "intellectual property"; thoughts are intangible and personal while intellectual property is the tangible (visually, audibly, or tactilely) extemporaneous expression of a thought or idea accompanied by a verifiable and legally recognized claim to "first art". Your thoughts can not be verified by anyone, and are not tangible until you express them, so no one can own any part of them.
But fun aside, if you are seriously believing this nonsese, consider this: for most of human history, people like Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Shakespeare, Mozart, Bethoven etc etc created sicence and art without needing any of the "intellectual property" scams. In fact they all did it, as scientists and artists do for the love of discovery and art. In a properly functioning society, sicentists get paid by public academia and private research grants and their work is for all to enjoy free of charge
This argument that there was a time in history where knowledge and art were altruisticly pursued and benevolently supported is not historically accurate. Newton, according to several bios I've read, "flagrantly abused" his position as president of the Royal Society to claim priority in disputes with fellow scientists. His unarguably significant scientific achievements were born of a drive for status. Shakespeare's productions were for-profit ventures that provided him significant wealth. Mozart and Beethoven, for whom commisioned works and box office receipts were their bread and butter, lived and died largely in poverty. Some bios opine that poverty hastened their deaths.
In your properly functioning society, how is public academia funded? How about the private grants? Where do the art patrons and foundations get their money?
I think the key here is "public opinion leaders"...The average man does not have those defenses.
If the average man has a vehicle (tongue, pen, keyboard) with which to express his opinion, then he has the same vehicle with which to defend himself. But this notion you have of attack and defense with regard to opinion is too vague. Who is staging an attack, from whom is the average man defending his opinion?
So if a child pornographer, sex offender, nazi, or bigot can defend himself/herself logically they should be able to speak without fear even though they are defending an unpopular opinion?
Your examples here are poor. A criminal's public confession is not protected speech. If you meant that they should be able argue what they do should not be criminalized, then they do have that right, but must figure out how to do it without implicating themselves in a specific criminal act. If they do end up getting caught and convicted, it wasn't because of their opinions, it was because of their actions.
In the cases of a Nazi or bigot, they do have free speech, and do attempt to defend themselves publicly. There are many, many racist and anti-semetic organizations that demonstrate publicly and publish works frequently. If they, rightly IMHO, get criticized for it, then that shouldn't surprise them much. If their lives are "ruined" for it, then I guess they should re-examine their lives.
If you have to ask this question you have not been paying attention to current events. Period. Umm...let's see - Free Speech Zones is one of the first that comes to mind. A lady that got removed from a political rally for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt is another. Just look around and you'll find examples a plenty.
These are not cases of politically incorrect opinions. These are cases of dissenting opinions being oppressed by government entities that don't show much respect for the values they are entrusted to uphold. And there is nothing "unpopular" about criticizing Bush; almost half the country voted against the guy in a viciously contested election. The state of free speech in this country is much more at risk because of corrupt policymakers and enforcerers than it is from political correctness.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no reason for these credit bureaus to still have my mailing address from six years ago. My car insurance company isn't allowed to keep data that far back ...
I'm not a fan of credit agency business practices either, but I'm curious about this comment. Once a person (or company) (legally) acquires any given piece of information, I think they're allowed to keep it for as long as it's practical for them to do so. Credit agencies may only *score or report* on 7 years prior data, and insurance companies only act on 3 to 5 years prior data. I'm not aware of any requirements for either type of company to purge data older than their action windows. But I'm very open to correction...
Apologies, but there are several other items from your post I should address.
Seasonal refers to the natural periodic varation that occurs in the data.
Of course. As others note, we can use a variety of methods to acquire actual historic climate datapoints by analyzing and observing artifacts from various eras. Geothermal observations don't depend on us knowing daily temperature data from prehistoric times. We have gathered enough datapoints to, in fact, understand precisely these "seasons" of which you speak. There's also enough data to measure rates of change, and these rates of change are exactly what is addressed by the models from the study.
That's why the person who made this comment says the model may not be
Are you sure? Perhaps he/she is just a dogmatic ideologue dismissing contradictory arguments. We'll never know, and frankly, it doens't matter one iota.
Do you have any knowledge of statistical models?
Yes, I do. But that is of no consequence and has nothing to do with the OP providing evidence of his/her assertions.
As far as climate goes, its period is similar to geologic timescales, or in other words, thousands and thousands of years. We don't have thousands and thousands of years of climate data,
As others have already pointed out, we do actually have climate data. It's weather data we lack, and yes, there's a meaningful difference in this context.
That makes modeling changes fairly difficult, because you don't know if what you're seeing is just part of the seasonal effects or not.
According to TFA, the scientists took actual datapoints (likely more than just "tempature@date/time") and compared it against the results one would expect to see from enumerated causes. I'm curious to hear how they constructed their models, but if they seek serious consideration, I'm sure they can address your modeling concerns.
To expand on the concept of replying for other posters, I'll take the AC side:
c -ncc020905.php which was from those wacky Europeans that everyone here says all are in agreement with the current global warming theories.
Actually there isn't much to retort in this article, as it is nothing but a bunch of claims and name calling, without any suporting data.
The AC asked the parent poster for a detailed analysis of the study, not the Times article. And there is reference to a reasonable amount of data in the study. Prior to its peer review and journal publication, neither of us can assess the methodology, so it's nonsensical to dismiss it (or OTOH to canonize it.) The press on the study was interesting to me, and in general terms it sounds like a solid effort.
Well that statement is certainly true. But that is because it only goes back 40 years to the low point in a global cooling trend. If you go back 65 years you see no net warming, so who cares.
The observed temperatures may indeed be within normal cyclic ranges, but that's doesn't mean the observed rate of change is "normal" too. And it isn't.
Can we see the data?
I'm sure eventually it'll be published somewhere, as that's academia's bread & butter.
Becuase, if true, it would cettainly be a revelation, as this has not been true ever before.
All you can say, based on evidence, is that these observations have never been made, or that this type of analysis was never done. You can NOT scientifically argue that the conclusions were not true prior to this study.
Which is why this article was released, it is basically just a retort from this article http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/sr
This is a dismissable ad hominem argument. The motives of the scientists involved in the study have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their conclusions. If the study followed solid scientific methods, they could be the leftiest lefty leftist tree-huggin' enviro-whacko business-hatin' agenda-pushin' hippies ever, but their conclusions would be right. If their science is flawed, they could be the same leftiest lefty leftist tree-huggin' enviro-whacko business-hatin' agenda-pushin' hippies ever, but their conclusions would very likely be wrong.
Appeal to motive is a logical fallacy that holds no weight with me.
There used to be an ocean in the middle of North America.
What the uninformed masses used to believe is hardly evidence of flaws in current scientific observations and study.
There are records that show thru out geo-history great freezings and greater warmings.
Yep. And analysis of these records yields evidence that humans have impacted the rate of recent warming significantly beyond former warming rates.
Yes, I know we have millions of cows releasing flatulants...but didn't we have millions of buffalo before we killed all of them? So that kinda balances out.
Uh, I'm going to ignore the whole cow-fart angle. It gives me gas.
Have we released green house gases. Yes. Have they had an affect. Probably....but when you read how black the skies were in London 200 yrs ago from all the wood burning and carbon emissions.
Yes, but don't you think the borders of London may have been quite a bit smaller back then? The population was magnitudes smaller, so the amount of black in the skies was probably not too significant compared to the collective output of greenhouse gases we currently have. I might be wrong, but I'm not.
And so although I believe there could be a global warming I am very skeptical about whether that is due just because of mankind or natural occurrences.
I'm skeptical that your skepticism is based on sound evidence.
How much peer review have these models been subjected to? What assumptions are built into these models?
From TFA:
"... the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal,.. "
We'll see if it holds up to review then. Who knows? My personal hope is that it does. If so, though, I don't expect it to sway the entrenched skeptics, who seem to consider ideology as evidence of scientific observation.
I find it hard to believe that the supposed intelligencia in the /. crowd can't grok the difference between tracking and modeling climatic trends and local weather events.
Simply put, predicting specific events is very hard, but tracking and modeling general trends is relatively easy.
Care to through some analysis or evidence around your assertion of irrelevance, or does evidence not factor into your "logic"?
I think what we have here with Devin Thompson is a kid with a serious mental problem.
Yes...so what connection does this have with gaming?
I think that there needs to be serious research into the abilities of people to separate virtual/conceptual from real.
You mean like the collective research that supports the fields of psychiatry and pyschology? In your post, you're basically describing schizophrenia, which is a heavily researched mental illness already.
Are you implying that we should study gaming as a potential trigger for sociopathic or psychopathic symptoms in subjects with latent tendencies towards mental illness? Or are you already prepared to assert the idea that gaming is a trigger, and thus we must monitor and control the gaming of those with latent and/or diagnosed mental illness? Is there research to support such an assertion?
If the tendencies are indeed latent (e.g. undetected), how do you identify who needs to be "controlled and monitored" with respect to gaming?
If we don't do this, things like this will happen more and more frequently and get worse and worse.
Are you saying that gaming, as an activity, is more likely to trigger violent behavior in the mentally ill than other activities, and thus should be singled out?
Schizophrenic subjects don't perceive reality the same way we do. Any real or perceived sensory input can trigger a violent reaction. I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that "violent" media have any greater triggering affect than, say, sitting alone in an empty room.
The people who fear video games do not fear alcohol. Why? They don't appreciate or understand the former, but keenly appreciate and understand the latter.
Where is this "public Internet" of which you speak? I'm only familiar with the usual one where independent, often private, entities make contractual arrangements with other entities to peer or purchase IP transit and various application services, over privately owned or leased circuits.
The Internet is public like a shopping mall is public, not like a city park is public.
BTW, who would you have enforce this license of yours?
Having just finished a long, occasionally brutal, tete a tete with the grandparent poster regarding copyrights etc, I can't believe I'm jumping in here. In a relatively sympathetic position no less...
There is *no* purpose in Slashdotters pondering this little mathematical tidbit. The law has no interest in it.
Does thinking critically about existing law serve no purpose? Does the law's interest supercede the interests of men in all cases? Just pondering.
I think "banned" in context around the parent poster's comments would be defined as "unlawful to publish, possess, or read in the US", as opposed to "ad hoc removal from library circulation in some public jurisdictions".
Mind you, I'm not advocating any form of ban, other than what a parent/guardian may decide is appropriate for their minor children.
Well, not beyond any doubt, but you've given me some *serious* food for thought. Interesting!
I hope this little diatribe of mine was helpful in understanding my position on this.
Very much so. Later, then...
With VoIP, things get a little more complicated. It's far harder to tell geographically where the caller is at the time.
True. There is no IP-based method for determining the physical location of an IP phone. There are kludges...
The best they could do, based on IP address might be from the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC databases, which may be the ISP address (in another city, or even country)..
It isn't even *that* workable. Searching by IP address has two fatal flaws. One, no PSAPs currently interface with carriers/VoIP providers using VoIP, so by the time it gets to a dispatcher center, the call is SS7/G.711 POTS e.g. no IP info is available. Two, even if PSAPs did interface with VoIP providers using VoIP, you have to back up a step to answer the question, "How did _this_ call get routed to _this_ PSAP?" The routing decision has to be made by the VoIP carrier prior the dispatcher even answering it. At that point, the dispatcher may trivially infer which "ISP" the call came from (i.e. the VoIP provider who routed it to him/her).
Or just provide the registered billing address of that VOIP customer. You call it from your phone while on vacation, and the emergency dispatcher thinks you're in another country. Clearly not brilliant.
In my experience, VoIP providers request a *service address*, not necessarily the same as the billing address, when provisioning a new IP phone instance for a customer. It's this address that gets passed to PSAPs.
The VOIP providers would have to employ call screeners who work out who/where the caller is before manually routing the calls to the appropriate emergency dispatcher, which causes potentially life-threatening problems.
SIP, the more popular VoIP call signalling protocol, describes a registration process for new IP phones on the network. This registration process could be modified to include the manual entry of a service address whenever the phone is booted. This address could then be systemically distributed to PSAPs as required. It assumes some user dilligence, but is more automated than many other techniques. Phones could even store a list of several service addresses, so users could quickly choose one (rather than retyping it on the 12 button pad each time.)
Well, I think it'd be cool.
I must start by saying that with this post you have earned my respect, for two reasons.
First, you have convinced me, not yet to agree with your position, but to respect its viability. I grant you some fair points, but I still disagree with you on some key issues.
Second, I very much appreciate and respect the tone of your post. We, in our current and previous discussions, have dipped to pretty infantile levels of personal animosity over a difference of positions on IP. That's just not a good way to advocate for something, even if we are passionate about it.
Now, I'm willing to lay down my pen-sword and walk away from this discussion with a better understanding and respect for you and your position. However, because a promise is a promise, I will--at your option--continue to walk through your example. Let me know if you'd like to continue.
Let me first say that I'm getting worn out by this discussion too, and in that sense I very much welcome the simplification. However, on another level, I can't help but feel that this is a blatant attempt to dodge some very specific questions I've posed to you. Anyway rather than let you unilaterally frame the remaining discussion I have a brief expansion on your TV example:
A specific situation whereby a company B manufacturers a 100% copy of the TV set made by company A is valid and acceptable (as with potatos) and the only thing of concern to the consumer is if the set was indeed made by A or B or someone else. Again, mere shipping records are sufficient to determine that.
Okay. Let's say that Company A is DBA "Acme Electronics" and Company B is DBA "Acme Electronics". In your economic model this would be a perfectly valid practice, since company names are ideas and can be duplicated without "stealing" physical property. Let's also say Company A's and Company B's logos and sales collateral are 100% identical. Again, a perfectly valid business practice since logos, ads, fliers, etc are all 100% duplicable without "stealing" physical property. Finally, let's say that Company A did the actual R&D to create the TV and Company B acquired the design and material to make the 100% copy at no meaningful cost (much like downloading and then serving a copyrighted song online.) Let's say Company A charges $500 for this TV (creating enough profit margin to succeed but not enough to exploit consumers) and Company B charges $50 or nothing, since their costs are trivial.
Tell me again how Joe Consumer is served by this model? How does he realistically tell he's buying a "Company A" or "Company B" TV? Better yet, since from his prespective everything is 100% identical (except for cost) tell me why it would matter to him?
It's not all about the consumer side of the equation either. What return does Company A get for their R&D investment? A "warm fuzzy" doesn't keep anyone employed. Even if Joe Consumer were good-hearted enough to pay a 90-100% premium to Company A to reward their R&D effort, he would have to do a lot of due dilligence to figure out who was who because everything but some addresses are identical. Most times, Joe Consumer will not pay that premium anyway because good hearts fall prey to frugal souls quite often.
Tell me these answers and I will be happy to continue with yours.
And even that's not good enough, because the cable company might go down. I can't ever see any other provider having the redundancy and reliability that the current US phone system has, or any country's for that matter.
Well, I'm a network engineer/planner for a telco, and I can tell you that there's no magic behind our industry's power design. I'd be shocked (no pun) if the large ISP and cable players don't match it point for point.
Yes.
Enhanced 911 Services, or 911 trunks to each PSAP in markets served by $VoIP_Company both solve this problem. Neither is manditory, but many providers offer it to achieve parity with POTS features.
E911 is not just for wireless anymore. Here's another good link:
http://www.911dispatch.com/information/voip.html
All you have provided is misdirections, vague hints, ambiguous excuses worthy of a crook running for an office, innuendo and fancy footwork
...
...
... The only requirement in existance is that a product can be certified as authentically made by a company ... Protection of authenticity (i.e. attribution) of products is the only thing required of a free market in this context.
Laughable. I've done nothing but dismiss one contextually-orphaned strawman after another. You're welcome to keep sending me more fodder though, if you like.
Only a small fraction (the least beneficial to society) of our economy depends on "branding, trademarks, servicemarks, and similar methods of" connivery
And who determines relative "social benefit"? And, very specifically, tell me what this other largest fraction of our economy is that doesn't use IP in some way?
Not only did I present you with irrefutable evidence that healthy economic systems not dependent on this crap are possible (as they were in operation for millenia)
Yep. And then I returned that evidence to its contextual origin, and explained how we have moved on from that era into a new one. And?
but the legal monopolies created by these aberrate laws are staunchly anti-free market since they represent extra-systemic interference by governmental bodies.
You mean the temporary monopolies granted to those who invested their creative and economic resources into creating something original to market? If you were more pragmatic, and argued that IP rights should be tightly limited to foster long term competition, we'd find common ground.
If you are serious about it, we can discuss in detail the anti-free market action of these ill-conceived laws.
Since discussing things with you is so is such a monumental pain, I'll pass. Thanks though.
The system I described is not only proven to work (by our history) but also avoids these market-distorting pitfalls.
You haven't described jack shit. You keep asserting "We could do without IP, because it's been done before" without acknowledging little things like the Industrial Revolution and its affect on how products are produced and distributed. You haven't once said, "This is how it would work now..."
And I wont even get into the disasters that await us if the "intellectual property" robber-barrons and their apologists (that means you) succeed in totally devouring Western legal systems.
Typical of your "Assert and Dodge" rhetorical style.
This example does not provide any imperative for "branding" of any sort.
Exactly my point!! It's an example of your beloved pre-Industrial Revolution economy where low productivity and slow distribution meant differentiation was largely irrelevant. That was very clear in the paragraph you quoted back to me. Good grief, I'm becoming more and more convinced you have a learning disability that prevents you from keeping anything you read in context.
By "branding" you seem to refer to simple attribution. Inventing new words in order to screw the legal system up is a classic example of the sort of activities "IP" proponents are up to.
Er, the word comes from the practice of branding livestock (property), but no matter. I'm referring to branding in the classical sense of a company distinguishing their product in the marketplace from competing products by using trademarked, servicemarked, and copyrighted names, logos, and sales collateral and advertising, e.g. using IP constructs.
I grant you that making sure that "widget A" came indeed from company "A" and not someone predending to be "A" is important
There we have it! Argument over, and I win. You can't have it both ways. Either Company A may say, "Hey! That's our product (in design and/or manifestation) and Company B is marketing our product
Okay, to continue...and since you couldn't hold your wad until I completed my response I'll include my retort to your most recent reply here too. In all fairness, I accept responsibility for the loss of sync, since due to time constraints I haven't been very good about posting quickly.
... Now only if you kindly could explain what any of this has to do with funding arts or academia through grants and patronage instead of direct revenue ...
... since it appears that you are suggesting that no commerce could have occured prior to that and no wages could have been paid.
We will come back to this as soon as you define "first art" that is "verifiable".
I've define first art well enough by now, and I'm using verifiable within its standard definition, look it up if required.
No we can merely translate the energy of air molecules into other forms of energy and use it to alter structure of some storage medium. "Sound waves in air" and "ordered motions of air molecules" are physically equivalent. One is actually defined as the other. "Sound" is defined as a sensory perception caused by vibrations of a bone in our inner ear, caused by the said "Sound waves". Note that other types of medium are possible such as water and solid materials, all capable of having their molecules vibrate in an ordered way.
Wow. My "big word" first definition of IP has nothing on this. You win the "let's derail a discussion by vomiting irrelevant minutia on a simple idea" award hands waaay down. I couldn't even begin to compete with this zen mastery.
My point was you could use a standard audio recording, if appropriate, as part of your evidentiary trail in claiming originality of a thought or idea. The physics of how energy acts in conjunction with physical entities to create such a recording is indeed interesting, but entirely moot in this context.
So you claim that we record the neural impulses from the inner ear receptors to determine originality!..Marvelous!
What a clumsy strawman! I did nothing of the sort. Obviously, I was just giving an example of possible evidentiary material for justifying a claim of originality. Mind you, such a recording must be dated and otherwise documented to be a complete claim.
My point was pretty fucking obvious. If you destroy the underpinnings of our current ecomonic model there will be no direct revenue or income for supporting patronage. Like it or not, our current economy is reliant on branding, trademarks, servicemarks, and similar methods of protecting product and service differentiation.
would suggest a particular emphasis on the impossiblity of conducting any business prior to introduction of "copyrights, patents, trademarks, and servicemarks" and how the whole of human kind lived in
The world has moved on from feudal and agrarian economies where productivity and distribution was low and slow. Prior to the industrial revolution, product differentiation was not a factor since economies were largely local. If you went to the general store to buy corn, that corn was locally grown and was in a big bin labeled "corn". There was no branding and no need for it, because local demand was usually equivalent to local production, and even if they were askew, there was little to be done, because long distance distribution was a pretty difficult task.
As the Industrial revolution increased productivity and distribution speed, the concept of branding came hand in hand to fill a need to separate Paul's widgets from Peter's widgets. In an every-increasing global market, branding and advertising to differentiate became the norm. Companies had to have methods to protect their brands, products and services from being copied by competitors, and so IP law was born. In case it's not explicit enough for you yet, brands are IP, and are as essential to companies everywhere for market success. Without legal backign to protect
All right. I will ignore your first neat "definition" ... and focus on the second:
... I only respond to your assertions.
That would be nonsensical and stupid, but I suppose you've got to wear the shoes that fit. I didn't change the meaning at all, I just dumbed down the wording because you whined about it. They're equivalent and interchangeable.
Ahem... "first art"?! Could you care to explain this? What do you mean by this exactly? First how? No part of it (I will for the moment ignore definition of "art") was ever present in the universe before?..
By "claiming first art" I mean "asserting claim of original work in accordance with applicable laws." The literal definition of art as "creative work" isn't remotely relavent to this discussion. In addition, the claimed work need not even be factually original, so "First how?" doesn't matter. For example: If you are the tenth person to manifest some given work, and none of the first nine people stated a claim of originality, then you could reasonably and successfuly claim the work yourself. However, in a case where you're the second person to manifest some given work and the first person has claimed it, if you attempt to claim originality, you would fail, and the other person would prevail. Clear enough?
From your own definition:
I merely wondered what it was about that particular word, of the many in my definition, set you off on such bizarre tangents...
Unlike you, I happen to be in a rather comfortable position of not having to make anything up, in addition to having wee little things like laws of physics on my side.
You provide me with more than enough fallacy and folly to address without having to make things up. And the laws of physics are on no one's side of this discussion...
if information is not the "intellectual property"
No. What I said, clearly, was that "information *BY ITSELF*" is not IP. Information needs to be accompanied by a stated claim of originality, provisional to applicable laws.
what is the problem then with duplication of the information itself? Is it ok to make a copy of the information and just the representation is forbidden?
If the information IS NOT someone else's IP (i.e. information accompanied by a valid claim of originality) then duplicaion is not a "problem". If the information IS someone's IP, and they acquiesce or permit duplication, it is not a "problem". If the information IS someone's IP, and they don't permit duplication, then duplication is a violation of applicable law, and problematic to whatever degree the involved parties care.
Original? What is the threshold of originality required? 100% of the "physical manifestation" as compared to all the others? 50%? 10%? How do you measure it? The only measure known to me is information contents (i.e. comparing bits of data) but you just rejected that. Be specific.
If we all agree to be bound by rule of law, then this threshold can be arbitrated or litigated,on case by case basis or as a whole, by applicable governing bodies. We both live in nations where we are bound by rule of law, so this applies to both of us. Of course, we could choose to ignore this binding agreement if we accept the consequences of that choice.
I agree that comparing data, including the information and the accompanying claim(s) of originality, is a fair way to arbitrate disputed originality.
Not until you manage to come up with a way to measure "originality" in an unambiguous and scientifically verifiable way.
See the immediately previous point. Originality need not be measured scientifically if parties agree to be bound by law.
Otherwise your claim is just a wild assumption to be taken on faith.
I was merely asserting that only a minute number of thoughts throughout human history are original. For every "Here's what I'll call the wheel" thought
Oh for Pete's sake, why dont you throw in a few "time-space-fluxes" and "consciousness-matter methaphysical transforms" into your definition.
I'm sorry if the big words confused you. I'll simplify. In order for one's "thought" to become one's "intellectual property", one must do *both* of the following:
1) Manifest this thought in a way other's can detect it using one or more of their five senses; and
2) Claim "first art" in a verifiable and legally-defined way.
Again, *both* conditions must be met to turn a thought into intellectual property. Otherwise, it's either just one's thought or idea.
I am tired today so I will just point out some of the larger of the countless holes in your "argument".
I think you'd have better luck falling into a hole than consciously finding one in this argument. So far you haven't actually succeeded at doing either.
If your definition pertains only to "expressions" then the information itself is not part of it?
I don't know why you picked out the word expression to go on an on about...as you alone pointed out, there were plenty of others to choose from.
And, no. Information, by itself, doesn't constitute intellectual property. It must be manifested somehow, and it must be verifiably original to become intellectual property.
If it is then thoughts, being certainly a form of information would apply.
Nope. Review the definition again. There's no basis of originality to the VAST majority of all human thought. An almost infinitely small number of people seek any claim of originality for some meager number of their thoughts.
Say I listen to a song and then perform it myself exactly the same as the original (lets pretend I can sing that good). Is the song now being "xtemporaneous expression of my thought" mine? Are only the "expressions" "intellectual property"?
Well, if you heard the song then someone else manifested it first. Either they've claimed first art (verifiably & legally), so you have no claim of intellectual property, or they have not claimed first art. If the latter is true, under the law you may attempt and could possibly succeed at claiming intellectual property rights. That would be shady, unethical and immoral, but the law, ethics, and morality are not always in lockstep agreement.
Are only the "expressions" "intellectual property"? As in vibrations of air molecules? Not the information that they correspond to?...This is endless.
No one can verify the specific movement of specific air molecules at a specific time. So no, vibrations of air don't count as IP. But...we can record the audible "sounds" generated by those molecular movements, and that record can be used to make a verifiable claim to originality. If no one can verifiably demonstrate prior art, then the claim will stand. As you can see, verifiability, is as key to claiming IP as the information or expression thereof.
Without it, there can be no claim. You can scream "I made air vibrate in a unique way at [time/place]" or "I created magnetic fields that drove speakers that made air vibrate in a unique way at [time/place]" or *whatever*, until you're dead and bloated, but if there's no record of it, no one will much care.
They get them from all the same sources as they always did: taxation and private donations. The fundamental difference, which you failed to grasp, is that in that system it is possible to pay for art and science without having to have "DRM enforcing" anal probes installed in all citizens.
Businesses everywhere, be they corporations or privately-owned, rely on copyrights, patents, trademarks, and servicemarks to generate revenue. Wages and taxes are paid from revenue. Without income revenue, you have no donations from business. Without income revenue you have no wages. Without wages you have no private donations. Without income revenue you have no tax revenue. If you turn the faucet off, no water will come out the other end of the hose. Money doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Yippee, I have always hoped to run into you again. :^)
I seriously have to get myself a set of responses to this never ending drivel to cut and paste here.
That would certainly help people identify your rhetorical flaws more quickly.
The fact that someone "created" something does not constitute grounds for demanding payment. I spent time typing this reply in... cough up the money, you are reading it, are you not? I too spent time, energy and money (my internet service + my PC) for your "enjoyment"!
Context matters. If you provided your opinions on a pay-to-play blog you would be justified in expecting compensation. Since you provided it in a free forum, you have no justifiable claim to compensation. The act of creating something doesn't imply grounds for compensation in-and-of itself, but any binding agreements attached to the act of making it available to others would, if they contained terms of compensation.
These binding agreements may be laws, contracts or simply handshakes. I suppose it's reasonable to refuse to participate in any such binding agreement, if one accepts the consequences of ones actions.
Great! And what if I think a thought that someone thought before me! Oh shit! That means someone owns that thought and I am, as a part of my mind and soul is, someone else's property?
This argument ignores the fundemental difference between "thoughts" and "intellectual property"; thoughts are intangible and personal while intellectual property is the tangible (visually, audibly, or tactilely) extemporaneous expression of a thought or idea accompanied by a verifiable and legally recognized claim to "first art". Your thoughts can not be verified by anyone, and are not tangible until you express them, so no one can own any part of them.
But fun aside, if you are seriously believing this nonsese, consider this: for most of human history, people like Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Shakespeare, Mozart, Bethoven etc etc created sicence and art without needing any of the "intellectual property" scams. In fact they all did it, as scientists and artists do for the love of discovery and art. In a properly functioning society, sicentists get paid by public academia and private research grants and their work is for all to enjoy free of charge
This argument that there was a time in history where knowledge and art were altruisticly pursued and benevolently supported is not historically accurate. Newton, according to several bios I've read, "flagrantly abused" his position as president of the Royal Society to claim priority in disputes with fellow scientists. His unarguably significant scientific achievements were born of a drive for status. Shakespeare's productions were for-profit ventures that provided him significant wealth. Mozart and Beethoven, for whom commisioned works and box office receipts were their bread and butter, lived and died largely in poverty. Some bios opine that poverty hastened their deaths.
In your properly functioning society, how is public academia funded? How about the private grants? Where do the art patrons and foundations get their money?
I think the key here is "public opinion leaders"...The average man does not have those defenses.
If the average man has a vehicle (tongue, pen, keyboard) with which to express his opinion, then he has the same vehicle with which to defend himself. But this notion you have of attack and defense with regard to opinion is too vague. Who is staging an attack, from whom is the average man defending his opinion?
So if a child pornographer, sex offender, nazi, or bigot can defend himself/herself logically they should be able to speak without fear even though they are defending an unpopular opinion?
Your examples here are poor. A criminal's public confession is not protected speech. If you meant that they should be able argue what they do should not be criminalized, then they do have that right, but must figure out how to do it without implicating themselves in a specific criminal act. If they do end up getting caught and convicted, it wasn't because of their opinions, it was because of their actions.
In the cases of a Nazi or bigot, they do have free speech, and do attempt to defend themselves publicly. There are many, many racist and anti-semetic organizations that demonstrate publicly and publish works frequently. If they, rightly IMHO, get criticized for it, then that shouldn't surprise them much. If their lives are "ruined" for it, then I guess they should re-examine their lives.
If you have to ask this question you have not been paying attention to current events. Period. Umm...let's see - Free Speech Zones is one of the first that comes to mind. A lady that got removed from a political rally for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt is another. Just look around and you'll find examples a plenty.
These are not cases of politically incorrect opinions. These are cases of dissenting opinions being oppressed by government entities that don't show much respect for the values they are entrusted to uphold. And there is nothing "unpopular" about criticizing Bush; almost half the country voted against the guy in a viciously contested election. The state of free speech in this country is much more at risk because of corrupt policymakers and enforcerers than it is from political correctness.