Ridiculous. What I say is a true statement, not flamebait. The crux of the matter is, people that use the argument 'if you have nothing to hide' seem to have the premise that only people that are hiding something would object, which is obviously not the case. People have inherent rights, which are NOT derived from the question whether or not we want to hide something.
"Would it really tend to be the same curve as the general population, or are those with more expertise in a given area also more likely to be editting in the first place?"
To some extend this is probably true, but the effect will be greater on obscure or very specialised topics, then on more general ones. As the saying goes: 'With art, everyone is an expert' (replace art with a considerable number of other topics). The more popular or high profile (or evoking much emotions) a topic is, the more all sorts of people will edit it - this will no doubt be close to a Gausscurve of the general population.
For obscure/dry (to the populace)/specialised/etc. topics, it is probable that experts will be more prone to edit it. Yet, even then it does not solve the problem completely: you do not elliminate the degradation towards the median, you only slow it down.
Because, after all, it is still possible for every Joe Doe to edit those articles, and sooner or later it *will* happen. The only way in which those specific articles would get slowly better, is if the experts editing it would be greater then the amount of hoi palloi editors. The more popular wikipedia becomes, the less likely this is going to be, because new 'incomming' experts on those obscure or specialised topics will be less in comparison (as the Gauscurve demonstrates), then the amount of freshly arriving and ready-to-mess-up mediocre ninkenpoops of this world that find their way to the wikipedia.
Apart from the question whether any religion is all that consistent, it IS possible to have a consistent and internal logical construct, that is based on nothing more then biased opinion, for instance. (Or on what a book like the bible says, etc.)
The point I'm making is, that even if you have a consistent religious faith, it is still based on *faith*, not reason. Whether or not you feel it is right, surely you must accept it doesn't mean everyone agrees it is right. Thus you are left with the problem of having a meaningful debate: if you don't use logic and rationale on your starting premise (which is your religious belief), then you either assume others agree with your premise, or you don't. If you don't, then clearly the starting premise differs (and it does differ, because I do not subscribe to the premise that everything comes from god and all the rest what you said about jesus and the lot, as comming from a higher Authority).
If you have no common startingpremise, then you can not really have a debate. Let me give an example: say a racist says that whites should be allowed to kill negros without any punishment, and if you ask why, he claims they are not human (and that is his basic premise). Well, clearly logic has the possibility to point out that blacks belong to the human race too. But what if he says: "for me, anyone with a black skin is subhuman." It is his personal belief, and he can be very consistent in it...only there is no meaningful debate possible, as long as he uses that as premise.
However, if he doesn't take his own belief as absolutism, and accepts logic and a common ground (such as the scientific explanation of 'race'), then you can debate the matter further.
Whether it is a deepheld racist belief, or a belief in God/Bible/Jesus/shiva/jahwe/etc does not make any difference, certainly not by those that hold and cherish that belief.
I actually don't know if you were being ironic or not.
I hope you were, because it's such religious-nutty crap.
I will claim another truth; that you, nor anyone else has anything to say that is more validated because it is derived of his religion. you either accept that, or you don't, but the seperation of state and church might give you an idea about the matter.
As it is mentionned in a book of Carl sagan; you either use logic in your debate or not; if you do, then logic is the way to to proceed, if you don't, then why shopuld I waste any of it on you and your reasonings? Is it that difficult to see that your viepoint is NOT worth anything more then anyone else? and even if religieus considerations are the measurement, then what about muslims and all the other religions? Clearly, if you think God has the final answer, then the god of mulsims and the deities that are worshipped in India have the same rights.
claiming only the catholic god and the bible has the only possible true answer is arogant, and can't be justified in any way, exept maybe by the feeling people have their religion is absolutely right (which isn't the perogative of reborn christians, I may add).
It is amazing to see how difficult it is to swallow that concept for xians (and other relgious based people). The bible, God, Jesus, Mohamed, Jahwe, Shiva, etc. have NO sway in things, and if they had, who would determine what and how? It is an OPINION of you personal that God rules everthing, and everything should be rules according to gods' laws, but it remains a mere opinion, not worth anything more then the opinion of another person. After all, why would your God be more 'right' then Shiva or any other god? Because you say so? Because it says so in the bible? that are all subjective, biased statements.
Using logic and rationale is the only way one can actually progress ; denying that, and you deny any meaningful debate on the matter.
True, but it doesn't make the point for you. Usually, genetic defects caused by incest doesn't show itself after several generations. Apart from that, if genetic defects in children would be a reason to not allow marriages, then wouldn't it also follow that people with a higher chance of getting children with genetic defects shouldn't be allowed to marry? Like handicap people or people that simply have a higher chance of getting kids with genetic diseases? Logic would dictate that, following your reasoning, it would. It would therefor restrict more marriages, to a certain extend, then even are allowed now.
"That's a good medical argument against incestuous procreation."
Maybe, but see above. Basically, once you go that way, you are arguing that the chance of having genetically defect children are the measure of allowing relationships/marriages or not. Some relationships existing now (and being fully legal) would thus become void. Also, there is no objective reason why a relationship or marriage would become unvalid if there is a higher chance of genetically defect offspring. Does a relationship or marriage only serves procreration, and is that the sole measuremnt if it should be allowed or not? It seems rather arbitrary to decide it is, actually, seen the fact that homosexuals can't even procreate at all.
"Birth control is rarely so effective."
That's not the point. The point is, if procreation is the measure to be hold for allowing marriage (which I do not agree with, and which would also exlude homosexual copples), then people who don't have kids should be allowed to marry, even when it's incestious. Condoms may be inadequat, but that's totally beside the point; it could well be that the sis has taken out her ovaries, and so can't have kids, which would invalidate your reason (if there would be an objective reason why procreation would be the determinant factor, that is).
"But I still have concerns about whether the relationships are truly of free will."
That's yet another issue all together. All objections you make, could be said about adults that are non-siblings too. 'Was she raised to', 'was it because parents' etc. (The westermark effect isn't all THAT strong, btw) In any case, one can not objectively conclude whether someone is doing it out of free will, or is merely thinking she/he is doing it out of free will, one has to acknowledge it is futile to try to make an objective judgement on it. If she/he THINKS and FEELS that it is out of her/his own free will, then that's it. Anything else would amount to questioning everything. How can I be sure you married out of free will (if you have), how can I be sure of anything that anyone does, is out of free will? I have to take his/her word for it. If I don't, I can question whether you say or do things out of free will, even if you claim you do as well. The question becomes not-meaningful; I, and my opinions, are shaped by the experiences I have gone through, just as anyone else. Making a moral (or otherwise) judgement on someone who are of the opinion (themselves) that they made their decision freely, as being unvalid, is arrogant. EVERYONE acts from within their own values provided by nature and nurture; none is superior in the realm of free will.
Apart from that, say they truelly made their decision freely in any sense even you could conceive of; then marriages between brothers, for instance, should be allowed. Staying within the reasoning, no other conclusion can be logically made. Agreed?
well, that is exactly the kind of fundamentalism I was talking about; you don't find it only with muslim fundamentalism, you know.
For me, God is a human concept. Jesus, though he may actually have existed is just a human being, not the son of God. Interpretations of the bible or other religious assertations have no sway in my opinion. I only accept rational and logicalm concepts based on common premises. Everything else is just crap.
Don't take me wrong: I can acceptothers have a religion that governs their lives, only for me, whether you speak about God or elves or magical dragons (see Carl Sagan), it's just the same. I don't think it has any moral superiority based on religious or other fantastic concepts. I think most will agree in modern times, otherwise there wouldn't be a seperation between state and religion.
You are entitled to your religion but it does NOT hold more truth then any other philosophy, idea or copncept on itself. Seen the ambiguity, I prefer rationale and logic above religious feelings every day of the month.
"And why not? A society must have some common ground to agree on "right" and "wrong". "
Yes, but it is preferable to have a modern libertarian common ground that has a great tolerance for other viewpoints and trying to deal with issues on a rational and logical basis with as premise that an individual should be as free as possible - then some biased opinions based on religious feelings and interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago by some largely uneducated people from primitive tribes.
"But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature."
Purpose? Purpose? Nature does not *have* any purpose. It's not meant to serve any purpose. The whole of nature can be looked at as an oddity, including heterosexuality. Infact, with the same reasoning it IS an oddity: during millions, nay, billions of years procreation was done by cloning themselves. Heterosexuality was an oddity that probably happend by some mutation following darwinian principles... thus maybe we should forbid it too?;-)
Male bees a drones, and basically only serve to do it with the queen once in their lifetime (if they get lucky;-)
As for your whole debate: I think you both are right in a sense, but your 'oponent' is strictly (and in some way absurdly) himself to the leglislative aspect of 'rights', while you (and me) realise there is something else then legislature and lwas. You have the legal part and the ethical part of 'right'. Laws and rules only aproximate what is just in a moral and ethical way, and don't always succeed. (what your oponent also said, btw).
That said, in a sense it is denying a right through wordplay and semantics; things politicians are very good at. You can make a law saying a person can only penetrate a pussy, and claim it's fair because it counts for everyone. But everyone knows, including the politicians that bring it up and make it into law, that this means homosexuals wouldn't have any chance of legaly having sex, for instance.
A law that is 'for everybody' doesn't make it a just law, nor does it diminuish the ethical rights homosexuals or other people have, I'm sure we can all agree to that.
PS.I would appreciate a response to my 'incest-question' post:-)
It is true that because something has been so in the past doesn't mean it is right or wrong now. In fact, I suspect wrong and right are higly subjective, differing from culture to culture and timeperiod to timeperiod.
This might make you nod, but it also means, that there is no absolute right and wrong, like you seem to believe. What was wrong 1000 years ago can now be right, and what is right today can be wrong 1000 years from now.
If you say "it is a currently held popular belief that's wrong", you mean YOU think it is wrong, in this time, in the surroundings and culture you grew up with. It doesn't make it wrong in any absolute sense, invoking god or the bible or not. this is ofcourse true for my beliefs too; I'm fully aware that they are derivates from my own culture, upbringing, education, learning, society, mentality of friends and family, etc.
However, there are some differences between your view and mine (or that of fmaxwell). First of all, it is true that you don't know what is 'better', untill the views are allowed to clinch with eachother. It is basically true that, while new doesn't mean better, better definately always means new. You *can't* get anything better, if you don't allow anything new, agreed?
Secondly, and more fundamentaly, fmaxwel has a point: even if both viewpoints are regarded as opinions of oposite sides, it still is true that *we* don't try to impose our viewpoint on you, while you (or at least the reborn xian side) tries to impose their view. We do not forbid you to marriage to whome you see fit, but you (idem) do.
I am not to happy about the lifestyle some homosexuals develop and seem to praise neither; their mass demonstrations and 'gay parades' seem like a bunch of crazy oversexed-and-thriving-on-shock-value nuts together, but still I find they have the same rights as all the rest of humanity that live on this little piece of space-floating dirt we call Earth.
Hmm...though I agree with almost all what you said, I must note that the issue of incest is rather brushed off a bit to easily.
Logic dictates, when using your arguments, that it should be allowed. Genetic defects are not caused by incest, but by repeated procreation by incest. apart from the question whether or not this gives you the right to forbid it, one should also note that genetic defects are not part of the equasion, per sé.
People could use condoms or other means not to make children with genetic defects; after all, current relationships (and marriage) hasn't got the obligation to create children, let alone healthy genetic-defect-free children, as far as I am aware. So what if they make sure they can't get children? Then your objection, even if it was a valid one, dissapears.
And what if they simply can't? Let's say two adult brothers do it with eachother...no way of genetic defects. And you are all for gays to have the same rights. And you claim that it should be allowed, as long as it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. Well, it doesn't.
So, logic dictates you would/should accept incest, and even the union of siblings, following your own reasoning. Do you?
If you don't, I'm curious how you're going to talk you out of this one.:-)
"and the idea that homosexuality is a normal variation of the human condition, are current popularly held beliefs that are also wrong"
You are just spouting whatever comes to your mind, mainly to justify your own biased believes. homosexuality, and the acceptance thereof, is not 'a current popular held belief' at all, it's as old as the street.
The old greeks and the roman empire were instances where it was condoned and accepted in a way that surpasses many 'current' countries, and that for hundreds of years. In many, many cultures, throughout history, homosexuality has been accepted (or not) for longer or shorter periods. There is nothing 'current' about it, neither is it just a popular fad, as you seem to indicate.
Well, I don't care for all the god/bible references really, since I am of the opinion it is crap (in the sense that it comes from a Higher Authority).
But you make some very good points.
"After all, if you've done nothing wrong, what's to fear?"
Indeed, indeed! That was used to let us swallow the streetcams too, and it is used again and again and again, while at the same time gaining more and more power to control.
It's SUCH bull...Whenever I see the people that say 'if you have nothing done, what's to fear?' I have the tendency to ask why they themselves don't hang camera's in their homes, bed and toilet included, then. After all, it might help reduce domestic violence. And surely they can't object, unless they have something to hide?
Yes, in principle, I think all people, and maybe even more correct; all sentient beings should have all freedoms. Which brings us directly to the dead horse that gets beaten so often;-) : your right and freedom stops, where mine begins (and vice versa).
Undoubtably, there are many area's where different people conflict where there freedom begins and ends, but as long as you agree to some basic premises (such as a person has more rights on his own property then another person does), it is possible to use rationale from those premisses and work out a coherent system. ote that rationale and logic are not exactly the same as rules and laws, because not all laws show any sign of logic and rationale, IMHO.:-)
There is the legislative part, and there is the ethical part, and while 'justice' should try to be ethically and morally just, it often only gets to some form of proximity to that goal. Yet, ultimately, the latter should prevail, because sometimes laws are plainly unethical. To come to a conclusion whether this is true or not, one can use the philosophy of Kant which basically amounts to: do not to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you (xians tell me that's biblical too:-), and with logic and rationale.
I will use these principles to answer your example: "Should I therefore free to walk into your house and eat your food (etc)" Well, if you agree with the premisse that my rights on my property are more important then yours, then clearly you are violating my rights if you do so without my approval (if you get my permission, then obviously, there is no problem). If you don't agree to that premise, then I have equal right to come and eat and sleep in your house.
So, the basic reason why you don't have the right to eat my food, is because then you take away my right to eat it myself. It's as simple as that.
"You opinion may result in more harm being done, by resulting in a higher than necessary crime rate or truancy rate."
First of all, the right on privacy does not mean you criminals have the right to remain free. As I said, your freedom (orthat of the criminal) is restricted by the freedoms of others. Criminals violate the freedoms of others, therefor it stands to reason their freedoms that they use to violate other peoples' freedom should be restricted. In most cases, personal privacy does not infringe on another persons' freedom, therefor, there is no reason to restrict it, even with criminals.
Which brings us back to those students that are truants. It becomes immediately clear the issue here is even more obvious then that of criminals: truants do not violate the freedoms of others. Whether they attend the class or not, they do not prevent others from attending the class. Their actions will only affect themselves in any major way. If they do not violate freedoms of others, there is no reason why another person should violate theirs.
"Given the choice of tagging everyone and preventing 911 or carrying on as we are which you choose?"
Carrying on as we are. You seem to think that 'harm' can only be measured in the casualties of terrorists, while I think, deriving the whole populace of a country of rights they always had, because of claimed (or even effective) improved security and safety does more harm then those same terrorists ever could have done.
If you are of the opinion that safety comes first, and that restricting the freedom of people helps restrict the damage (which is extremely doubtful indeed, as you noted correctly) then the next question becomes obvious: why not enslave all people and take away all their rights and, for instance, put them all in prison?
As you said, it must be reasonable. If freedoms are trampled on by some, it is reasonable to restrict the freedoms of those that violates the freedoms of others. If they don't violate the freedoms of others, it is not reasonable to violate theirs.
darn, I thought this would get a +3 funny in a hartbeat. I mean, if it were bad, it would get modded down, now I have the impression it's not understood. Is it too subtile?
nothing worse then a wordplay that has to be explained...:-/
name sake - ambiguity: japanese spirit - sake (saké)...
Whether or not the police has other uses is rather irrelevant; I think almost all functions, including those of teachers, have more then one use, but mostly there still is only one major goal.
In the case of teachers, as you said, it is imparting knowledge, and for the police it is fighting crime. I don't think this is really disputable: the symbolic nature and reasurrence you describe is deffered from the crime-fighting; take away the latter, and the rest becomes not very meaningfull. We don't pay police to patrol the streets for the sake of it, after all, let alone that would be their main objective.
"If tracking everyone were effective at fighting crime I would not object to it"
I think that says it all. If you iliminate all privacy, things would become far more easy to fight crime. In your viepoint, this would be acceptable. For me, however, this gives me the creeps; to have privacy is a form of freedom, and I despise the notion that it is ok to give away freedom to gain security, unless I chose to do so myself.
Which is the crux of the problem: I have no problems with you giving away all your privacy, but I don't acknowledge the right of anyone else (unless by courtorder) to restrict my freedoms if I don't agree with it.
I see privacy-infringements as intrusions; and if you violate one of my freedoms, why couldn't I violate one of yours? You either respect that other persons have rights, including the right of privacy, or you don't.
"the idea that you should have this right of privacy seems strange to me"
That much is clear. But ultimately, it doesn't matter too much if it is clear to you or not, as long as you acknowledge it is a right. If you don't, then why would anyone have to respect any of your rights?
"I still do not see why a child not attending school should remain private, from the instituion or from law enforcement, and it would seem neither do you."
I have tried to explain this depends on how you see the right on privacy. Your problem is, as I suspected before, and you now have clearly said yourself, that you don't understand the right on privacy. If privacy is not an issue for you, then obviously, there can't be a problem when it is violated.
My viewpoint on it is, that EVERY person, in principle, has a right of privacy, be it students, or yes, even criminals. If you don't acknowledge that right, then it is impossible for you to see why there might be problems with some laws or issues.
Let's say I live in the 19th century and I claim all people are free and shouldn't be a slave, and therefor laws that make negros slaves are violating that right. If then a slave-holder would say he doesn't understand the problem why negros shouldn't be slaves (which happend enough in that time) then what can anyone say, as long as he doesn't recognise the right of negros to be free? Maybe he could say "I come from a small village, and everyone has black slaves", but would it be convincing as an argument that, because something was like that in a small village, it should be like that everywhere for everyone? When taking away anyone's freedom, even if you are not directly affected by it (because you're white, or because you're not a truant or criminal) it STILL is something that is not right and should be fought.
Because ultimately, you (used generic here:-) may have your opinion on the matter, but it doesn't allow you to impose it on others. If I am for the right of privacy, then you can still wave that right and give your privacy away - so I am not violating any right of you. When you would abolish privacy, you DO take my right away, because I can't wave anything anymore.
It is basically a clash of opinions, but mine has the advantage that it leaves the possibility for everyone to do as he pleases with that right or opinion (including not making use of it), while yours impose it on others. I would claim the former is the better.
Well, first of all, I'm a bit unclear about the tenure of your post. You DO realise I was being ironic, I hope?
But, to respond in earnest; when following the reasoning of the parent poster (you) the analogue is perfectly viable.
The police job is NOT to patrol streets, it is to fight crime. You are confusing the means with the endgoal.
Thus, if it is not a problem for teachers to auto-track students,so that it becomes easier to go forth with their main objective, namely to impart knowledge, it's also not a problem for the police to track everyone so it becomes easier to go forth with their main objective; fighting crime.
While you seem to dispute it, the principle is exactly the same, it's just the degree that differs. But once you accept your basic reasoning, you have no ground to counterargument 'more of the same'. (Exept maybe by biased opinion when you think they are invading *your* privacy).
Your last question has no answer, because: why should anything be a private matter? As I said, the answer is subjective in nature; it depends on how an individual fills in privacy (and to what extend).
So rather then have police who is underpaid, overworked and likely to have low motivation carry out a labour intensive task like patrolling the streets, why don't we make it mandatory from birth to be tagged with an epidermal device so that everyone can be followed their entire life, if needed to?
Someone tell me the problem?
I think, if you don't value privacy, there is never a problem.
"ask any coder with a "donate" button, you'll see"
I'm afraid that is an overgeneralisation. It's true that OSS projects with a large userbase such as linux and firefox can generate a considerable amount of money, while this is harder for small 'lone coder' type of OSS. Yet, the basic thing is to captivate users, to make something they really want (and want to see continued), and this can be done without a huge userbase too.
Apart from a large userbase, the second way of getting money is to have a 'fan' base. An analoge example would be of 'trekkies'; while not a huge mass, they are fanatic enough for the series that they become economically interesting.
Take the example of Freenet for example. This project is relatively small, it doesn't come close to grand projects as linux and firefox, and its userbase isn't all that huge neither. Yet, it has a small group of die-hards and invokes enough interest on its own, to be able to pay Toad, the main developer - and it has done now for a considerable time. He doesn't earn money like he would in the private sector, but he does have enough for a decent living.
So, it IS quite possible to live from OSS: either you manage to get a large userbase, or you manage to get a profound interest of a small group of fans.
If they invade peoples' computer without permission and remove P2P programs (which aren't illegal on itself) just like that, they'll get sued themselves. Even if they wouldn't be breaking some law, which is probable, with all the cyberlaws flying around.
When I read the/. comments of the article, I thought it was going to be a higly biased piece of crap, a bit like SCO trying to claim they are the poor victims of the bad OSS-crowd.
To my surprise (ok, maybe I shouldn't have been, after all this time slashdorring;-) the comments itself are idiotic: the article in question is very good, clear, and contains a high degree of logic and rationale. While my first thought was a bit 'how dares he attack one of the great accomplishments of the Net', I must say he makes very, very convincing arguments. Infact, after reflection, I think he's basically right.
I too always thought that more eyes would mean better results, because...well, because we had the example of other (FL)OSS projects, like Linux. So how comes it isn't working (not very good at least) with the wikipedia? I think because firstly, to create, maintain and edit linuxcode, one has to know it in the first place. To some pretty high degree, people who are capable of coding are already experts to some level. In linux develoment, you can't just hop in, you have to prove that you at least have knowledge of the subject (which is derived from the assessment of the code given).
Furthermore, they have a product that has to work, and work better. You can actually look if it still works (better), something that can't be done in the wikipedia. I mean, make a totally crappy code, and the program won't work (or much worse); a clear indication something is wrong and that the new code is not right. Make a totally crappy page and you don't really have any objective measurement to see if it's better or worse, in an objective way. Sure, maybe experts would notice, but let's face it, even experts disagree often, and, more importantly as I (and the author of the article) said; a wikipedia isn't governed by experts. Even when an occasional expert may correct it, it's likely that some time later, a mediocre would-be ninkenpoop would edit it back in mediocrity.
I think the author made a very good point, and one that the current wikipediasystem will be unable to correct. The population, also in intelligence and intellect and even mere fact-knowing follows the curve of Gauss; meaning, that the majority of the populace are situated in the middle. The best example to demonstrate is that of IQ: the percentile of 80 to 120 (where 100 is the median) encompasses the vast majority, whereas the more smart and the more stupid make out an increasing litlle part.
Thus, it is easy to see that, if the populace is divided along the Gausscurve, people that are only moderatly knowledgable make out the vast majority, and since the wikipedia is open for all to edit, the bulk of the editors/users/etc. are going to be mediocre (as in: diverging to the median). So, even if a good article of an expert is going to be made, after a while, it will not become exellent, but will become more mediocre, just as the author says.
He does forget to mention, though, that the opposite is also through: the really bad articles will move towards the median too, so those WILL improve (but only to a certain extent). In the end, the whole wikipedia will, seen as a whole, wobble around mediocrity; not really bad, but not really good neither. I think this is, though a theory, probably an essential one. It's is impossible to break that trend, unless one has 1)a way to objectively see if an article is better, 2)there is a way of giving a higher degree of (strict) editing to the experts, which can be done on beforehand (by actually contacting experts), or by having a controlling function that lets editing be depended on the worth -determined by peers - of the articles.
Point 1 is going to be very difficult, because I don't see any way in which to objectively view which page is the better one, exept maybe by actually refering to real encyclopedia's (and thus, indirectly from experts). The difficulties with pages of knowledge and facts is that they can't be shown to be true (or better) or not, con
Well, to make it more clear: I was talking about such a system for all patents in general, and for improving the IP issues in the USA.
One can argument to be for patents, and copyright, but patents for software and businessmethods are really a super-bad idea. The reasons why have been said many times over, and ffii has good pointers to it too. It's better to prevent the disease then trying to cure the patient, so I hope software patents never happen in Europe.
However, as a general idea to improve the patents and copyright-mess, something along the line I suggest would be an improvement, me thinks (certainly compaired to the current system in the USA). Sure, it won't stop litigation, but I think nothing will.:-)
Anyway...does anyone know when the big showdown in the euro-pariament is going to be? I think it's possible to defeat the pro-software-patent lobby, but we'll need to gather all forces. If we beat them this time, I don't think it will come through (at least as an european directive) this decade.
Alas, it would be better if a directive was adopted that clearly and actively forbids softwarepatents. I don't care what the EPO or the commision says; they will always try to get it through some way, unless it's clearly forbidden.
Knowing human (and corporate) nature, I think you have a point in your first argument. However, the question is rather how to improve the system, not how to make it perfect (if that is even possible).
One could argue for no patents or indefinite ones, but a more balanced system seems more realistic.
I think a system in the lines I said would be fairly good, or at least a considerable improvement. Yes, big companies would probably gobble up small ones (even one they created themselves) if they profit in it. But when exactly would that be? I note that in my system it has to be renewed every 5 years, so if they created a company, had a small fee to pay (which was there intent), then they STILL had to pay big time for the next renewal.
Maybe they could create new ones, then buy them up again, etc., ad infinitum, but realistically spoken, such selling (or creating) and buying (or gobbling up) their own companies every 5 years for every patent will cost a lot too. Costs that companies which ARE small, don't have to make. So even in the worst case scenario, it still is a corrective mechanism.
In any case, patents and other IP that isn't commercially viable would become available to the public much sooner. It doesn't change the fact that the more rich, the more benefits/possibilities one has to get what one wants, but that's true for everything, even criminal legal procedures. Rich people can afford more and better lawyers, and thus have more chance of getting away with something, even in a perfect democratic non-corrupt state/legislature.
One can try to improve things (such as pro-deo lawyers), but I don't think it's actually possible to completely root out this sort of unfairness.
Maybe a system would be best where patents and copyright (etc.) is granted (exept for software and businessmethods, obviously) for a period of 5 years, being renewable every 5 years untill a total of 20 years. Each time the fee could get up, say from 1000 to 5000 to 25000 to 125000.
With an adequate social correction-mechanism, which allows individuals and small companies to do it for less (for instance 1/10th for an individual developer), and augmenting it depending on the size of the corporation, the problem you and some other poster mention would be greatly diminuished.
In that case, the prime purpose of lingering patents and copyrights that go on almost indefinately or no1 even knows exactly who has the IP rights (with as consequence that many works just go wasted and become lost for society), vanish, while at the same time there is a system in place that gives a more equal chance for small companies/individuals to be able to file patents and protect patents as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Ridiculous. What I say is a true statement, not flamebait. The crux of the matter is, people that use the argument 'if you have nothing to hide' seem to have the premise that only people that are hiding something would object, which is obviously not the case. People have inherent rights, which are NOT derived from the question whether or not we want to hide something.
"Would it really tend to be the same curve as the general population, or are those with more expertise in a given area also more likely to be editting in the first place?"
To some extend this is probably true, but the effect will be greater on obscure or very specialised topics, then on more general ones. As the saying goes: 'With art, everyone is an expert' (replace art with a considerable number of other topics). The more popular or high profile (or evoking much emotions) a topic is, the more all sorts of people will edit it - this will no doubt be close to a Gausscurve of the general population.
For obscure/dry (to the populace)/specialised/etc. topics, it is probable that experts will be more prone to edit it. Yet, even then it does not solve the problem completely: you do not elliminate the degradation towards the median, you only slow it down.
Because, after all, it is still possible for every Joe Doe to edit those articles, and sooner or later it *will* happen. The only way in which those specific articles would get slowly better, is if the experts editing it would be greater then the amount of hoi palloi editors. The more popular wikipedia becomes, the less likely this is going to be, because new 'incomming' experts on those obscure or specialised topics will be less in comparison (as the Gauscurve demonstrates), then the amount of freshly arriving and ready-to-mess-up mediocre ninkenpoops of this world that find their way to the wikipedia.
Apart from the question whether any religion is all that consistent, it IS possible to have a consistent and internal logical construct, that is based on nothing more then biased opinion, for instance. (Or on what a book like the bible says, etc.)
The point I'm making is, that even if you have a consistent religious faith, it is still based on *faith*, not reason. Whether or not you feel it is right, surely you must accept it doesn't mean everyone agrees it is right. Thus you are left with the problem of having a meaningful debate: if you don't use logic and rationale on your starting premise (which is your religious belief), then you either assume others agree with your premise, or you don't. If you don't, then clearly the starting premise differs (and it does differ, because I do not subscribe to the premise that everything comes from god and all the rest what you said about jesus and the lot, as comming from a higher Authority).
If you have no common startingpremise, then you can not really have a debate. Let me give an example: say a racist says that whites should be allowed to kill negros without any punishment, and if you ask why, he claims they are not human (and that is his basic premise). Well, clearly logic has the possibility to point out that blacks belong to the human race too. But what if he says: "for me, anyone with a black skin is subhuman." It is his personal belief, and he can be very consistent in it...only there is no meaningful debate possible, as long as he uses that as premise.
However, if he doesn't take his own belief as absolutism, and accepts logic and a common ground (such as the scientific explanation of 'race'), then you can debate the matter further.
Whether it is a deepheld racist belief, or a belief in God/Bible/Jesus/shiva/jahwe/etc does not make any difference, certainly not by those that hold and cherish that belief.
I actually don't know if you were being ironic or not.
I hope you were, because it's such religious-nutty crap.
I will claim another truth; that you, nor anyone else has anything to say that is more validated because it is derived of his religion. you either accept that, or you don't, but the seperation of state and church might give you an idea about the matter.
As it is mentionned in a book of Carl sagan; you either use logic in your debate or not; if you do, then logic is the way to to proceed, if you don't, then why shopuld I waste any of it on you and your reasonings? Is it that difficult to see that your viepoint is NOT worth anything more then anyone else? and even if religieus considerations are the measurement, then what about muslims and all the other religions? Clearly, if you think God has the final answer, then the god of mulsims and the deities that are worshipped in India have the same rights.
claiming only the catholic god and the bible has the only possible true answer is arogant, and can't be justified in any way, exept maybe by the feeling people have their religion is absolutely right (which isn't the perogative of reborn christians, I may add).
It is amazing to see how difficult it is to swallow that concept for xians (and other relgious based people). The bible, God, Jesus, Mohamed, Jahwe, Shiva, etc. have NO sway in things, and if they had, who would determine what and how? It is an OPINION of you personal that God rules everthing, and everything should be rules according to gods' laws, but it remains a mere opinion, not worth anything more then the opinion of another person. After all, why would your God be more 'right' then Shiva or any other god? Because you say so? Because it says so in the bible? that are all subjective, biased statements.
Using logic and rationale is the only way one can actually progress ; denying that, and you deny any meaningful debate on the matter.
"Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity"
True, but it doesn't make the point for you. Usually, genetic defects caused by incest doesn't show itself after several generations. Apart from that, if genetic defects in children would be a reason to not allow marriages, then wouldn't it also follow that people with a higher chance of getting children with genetic defects shouldn't be allowed to marry? Like handicap people or people that simply have a higher chance of getting kids with genetic diseases? Logic would dictate that, following your reasoning, it would. It would therefor restrict more marriages, to a certain extend, then even are allowed now.
"That's a good medical argument against incestuous procreation."
Maybe, but see above. Basically, once you go that way, you are arguing that the chance of having genetically defect children are the measure of allowing relationships/marriages or not. Some relationships existing now (and being fully legal) would thus become void. Also, there is no objective reason why a relationship or marriage would become unvalid if there is a higher chance of genetically defect offspring. Does a relationship or marriage only serves procreration, and is that the sole measuremnt if it should be allowed or not? It seems rather arbitrary to decide it is, actually, seen the fact that homosexuals can't even procreate at all.
"Birth control is rarely so effective."
That's not the point. The point is, if procreation is the measure to be hold for allowing marriage (which I do not agree with, and which would also exlude homosexual copples), then people who don't have kids should be allowed to marry, even when it's incestious. Condoms may be inadequat, but that's totally beside the point; it could well be that the sis has taken out her ovaries, and so can't have kids, which would invalidate your reason (if there would be an objective reason why procreation would be the determinant factor, that is).
"But I still have concerns about whether the relationships are truly of free will."
That's yet another issue all together. All objections you make, could be said about adults that are non-siblings too. 'Was she raised to', 'was it because parents' etc. (The westermark effect isn't all THAT strong, btw) In any case, one can not objectively conclude whether someone is doing it out of free will, or is merely thinking she/he is doing it out of free will, one has to acknowledge it is futile to try to make an objective judgement on it. If she/he THINKS and FEELS that it is out of her/his own free will, then that's it. Anything else would amount to questioning everything. How can I be sure you married out of free will (if you have), how can I be sure of anything that anyone does, is out of free will? I have to take his/her word for it. If I don't, I can question whether you say or do things out of free will, even if you claim you do as well. The question becomes not-meaningful; I, and my opinions, are shaped by the experiences I have gone through, just as anyone else. Making a moral (or otherwise) judgement on someone who are of the opinion (themselves) that they made their decision freely, as being unvalid, is arrogant. EVERYONE acts from within their own values provided by nature and nurture; none is superior in the realm of free will.
Apart from that, say they truelly made their decision freely in any sense even you could conceive of; then marriages between brothers, for instance, should be allowed. Staying within the reasoning, no other conclusion can be logically made. Agreed?
well, that is exactly the kind of fundamentalism I was talking about; you don't find it only with muslim fundamentalism, you know.
For me, God is a human concept. Jesus, though he may actually have existed is just a human being, not the son of God. Interpretations of the bible or other religious assertations have no sway in my opinion. I only accept rational and logicalm concepts based on common premises. Everything else is just crap.
Don't take me wrong: I can acceptothers have a religion that governs their lives, only for me, whether you speak about God or elves or magical dragons (see Carl Sagan), it's just the same. I don't think it has any moral superiority based on religious or other fantastic concepts. I think most will agree in modern times, otherwise there wouldn't be a seperation between state and religion.
You are entitled to your religion but it does NOT hold more truth then any other philosophy, idea or copncept on itself. Seen the ambiguity, I prefer rationale and logic above religious feelings every day of the month.
"And why not? A society must have some common ground to agree on "right" and "wrong". "
;-)
Yes, but it is preferable to have a modern libertarian common ground that has a great tolerance for other viewpoints and trying to deal with issues on a rational and logical basis with as premise that an individual should be as free as possible - then some biased opinions based on religious feelings and interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago by some largely uneducated people from primitive tribes.
"But it serves no purpose IMHO. It's an oddity of nature."
Purpose? Purpose? Nature does not *have* any purpose. It's not meant to serve any purpose. The whole of nature can be looked at as an oddity, including heterosexuality. Infact, with the same reasoning it IS an oddity: during millions, nay, billions of years procreation was done by cloning themselves. Heterosexuality was an oddity that probably happend by some mutation following darwinian principles... thus maybe we should forbid it too?
"male worker bees"
;-)
;-)
:-)
Ermm...actually, all worker bees are female.
Male bees a drones, and basically only serve to do it with the queen once in their lifetime (if they get lucky
As for your whole debate: I think you both are right in a sense, but your 'oponent' is strictly (and in some way absurdly) himself to the leglislative aspect of 'rights', while you (and me) realise there is something else then legislature and lwas. You have the legal part and the ethical part of 'right'. Laws and rules only aproximate what is just in a moral and ethical way, and don't always succeed. (what your oponent also said, btw).
That said, in a sense it is denying a right through wordplay and semantics; things politicians are very good at. You can make a law saying a person can only penetrate a pussy, and claim it's fair because it counts for everyone. But everyone knows, including the politicians that bring it up and make it into law, that this means homosexuals wouldn't have any chance of legaly having sex, for instance.
A law that is 'for everybody' doesn't make it a just law, nor does it diminuish the ethical rights homosexuals or other people have, I'm sure we can all agree to that.
PS.I would appreciate a response to my 'incest-question' post
It is true that because something has been so in the past doesn't mean it is right or wrong now. In fact, I suspect wrong and right are higly subjective, differing from culture to culture and timeperiod to timeperiod.
This might make you nod, but it also means, that there is no absolute right and wrong, like you seem to believe. What was wrong 1000 years ago can now be right, and what is right today can be wrong 1000 years from now.
If you say "it is a currently held popular belief that's wrong", you mean YOU think it is wrong, in this time, in the surroundings and culture you grew up with. It doesn't make it wrong in any absolute sense, invoking god or the bible or not. this is ofcourse true for my beliefs too; I'm fully aware that they are derivates from my own culture, upbringing, education, learning, society, mentality of friends and family, etc.
However, there are some differences between your view and mine (or that of fmaxwell). First of all, it is true that you don't know what is 'better', untill the views are allowed to clinch with eachother. It is basically true that, while new doesn't mean better, better definately always means new. You *can't* get anything better, if you don't allow anything new, agreed?
Secondly, and more fundamentaly, fmaxwel has a point: even if both viewpoints are regarded as opinions of oposite sides, it still is true that *we* don't try to impose our viewpoint on you, while you (or at least the reborn xian side) tries to impose their view. We do not forbid you to marriage to whome you see fit, but you (idem) do.
I am not to happy about the lifestyle some homosexuals develop and seem to praise neither; their mass demonstrations and 'gay parades' seem like a bunch of crazy oversexed-and-thriving-on-shock-value nuts together, but still I find they have the same rights as all the rest of humanity that live on this little piece of space-floating dirt we call Earth.
Hmm...though I agree with almost all what you said, I must note that the issue of incest is rather brushed off a bit to easily.
:-)
Logic dictates, when using your arguments, that it should be allowed. Genetic defects are not caused by incest, but by repeated procreation by incest. apart from the question whether or not this gives you the right to forbid it, one should also note that genetic defects are not part of the equasion, per sé.
People could use condoms or other means not to make children with genetic defects; after all, current relationships (and marriage) hasn't got the obligation to create children, let alone healthy genetic-defect-free children, as far as I am aware. So what if they make sure they can't get children? Then your objection, even if it was a valid one, dissapears.
And what if they simply can't? Let's say two adult brothers do it with eachother...no way of genetic defects. And you are all for gays to have the same rights. And you claim that it should be allowed, as long as it doesn't affect your marriage, your rights, or your church. Well, it doesn't.
So, logic dictates you would/should accept incest, and even the union of siblings, following your own reasoning. Do you?
If you don't, I'm curious how you're going to talk you out of this one.
"and the idea that homosexuality is a normal variation of the human condition, are current popularly held beliefs that are also wrong"
You are just spouting whatever comes to your mind, mainly to justify your own biased believes. homosexuality, and the acceptance thereof, is not 'a current popular held belief' at all, it's as old as the street.
The old greeks and the roman empire were instances where it was condoned and accepted in a way that surpasses many 'current' countries, and that for hundreds of years. In many, many cultures, throughout history, homosexuality has been accepted (or not) for longer or shorter periods. There is nothing 'current' about it, neither is it just a popular fad, as you seem to indicate.
What did the article say? My screen is so blurry I can't make it out!
Well, I don't care for all the god/bible references really, since I am of the opinion it is crap (in the sense that it comes from a Higher Authority).
But you make some very good points.
"After all, if you've done nothing wrong, what's to fear?"
Indeed, indeed! That was used to let us swallow the streetcams too, and it is used again and again and again, while at the same time gaining more and more power to control.
It's SUCH bull...Whenever I see the people that say 'if you have nothing done, what's to fear?' I have the tendency to ask why they themselves don't hang camera's in their homes, bed and toilet included, then. After all, it might help reduce domestic violence. And surely they can't object, unless they have something to hide?
and I'll try to answer them as best as I can.
;-) : your right and freedom stops, where mine begins (and vice versa).
:-)
:-), and with logic and rationale.
Yes, in principle, I think all people, and maybe even more correct; all sentient beings should have all freedoms. Which brings us directly to the dead horse that gets beaten so often
Undoubtably, there are many area's where different people conflict where there freedom begins and ends, but as long as you agree to some basic premises (such as a person has more rights on his own property then another person does), it is possible to use rationale from those premisses and work out a coherent system. ote that rationale and logic are not exactly the same as rules and laws, because not all laws show any sign of logic and rationale, IMHO.
There is the legislative part, and there is the ethical part, and while 'justice' should try to be ethically and morally just, it often only gets to some form of proximity to that goal. Yet, ultimately, the latter should prevail, because sometimes laws are plainly unethical. To come to a conclusion whether this is true or not, one can use the philosophy of Kant which basically amounts to: do not to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you (xians tell me that's biblical too
I will use these principles to answer your example: "Should I therefore free to walk into your house and eat your food (etc)" Well, if you agree with the premisse that my rights on my property are more important then yours, then clearly you are violating my rights if you do so without my approval (if you get my permission, then obviously, there is no problem). If you don't agree to that premise, then I have equal right to come and eat and sleep in your house.
So, the basic reason why you don't have the right to eat my food, is because then you take away my right to eat it myself. It's as simple as that.
"You opinion may result in more harm being done, by resulting in a higher than necessary crime rate or truancy rate."
First of all, the right on privacy does not mean you criminals have the right to remain free. As I said, your freedom (orthat of the criminal) is restricted by the freedoms of others. Criminals violate the freedoms of others, therefor it stands to reason their freedoms that they use to violate other peoples' freedom should be restricted. In most cases, personal privacy does not infringe on another persons' freedom, therefor, there is no reason to restrict it, even with criminals.
Which brings us back to those students that are truants. It becomes immediately clear the issue here is even more obvious then that of criminals: truants do not violate the freedoms of others. Whether they attend the class or not, they do not prevent others from attending the class. Their actions will only affect themselves in any major way. If they do not violate freedoms of others, there is no reason why another person should violate theirs.
"Given the choice of tagging everyone and preventing 911 or carrying on as we are which you choose?"
Carrying on as we are. You seem to think that 'harm' can only be measured in the casualties of terrorists, while I think, deriving the whole populace of a country of rights they always had, because of claimed (or even effective) improved security and safety does more harm then those same terrorists ever could have done.
If you are of the opinion that safety comes first, and that restricting the freedom of people helps restrict the damage (which is extremely doubtful indeed, as you noted correctly) then the next question becomes obvious: why not enslave all people and take away all their rights and, for instance, put them all in prison?
As you said, it must be reasonable. If freedoms are trampled on by some, it is reasonable to restrict the freedoms of those that violates the freedoms of others. If they don't violate the freedoms of others, it is not reasonable to violate theirs.
"
darn, I thought this would get a +3 funny in a hartbeat. I mean, if it were bad, it would get modded down, now I have the impression it's not understood. Is it too subtile?
:-/
nothing worse then a wordplay that has to be explained...
name sake - ambiguity: japanese spirit - sake (saké)...
Whether or not the police has other uses is rather irrelevant; I think almost all functions, including those of teachers, have more then one use, but mostly there still is only one major goal.
:-) may have your opinion on the matter, but it doesn't allow you to impose it on others. If I am for the right of privacy, then you can still wave that right and give your privacy away - so I am not violating any right of you. When you would abolish privacy, you DO take my right away, because I can't wave anything anymore.
In the case of teachers, as you said, it is imparting knowledge, and for the police it is fighting crime. I don't think this is really disputable: the symbolic nature and reasurrence you describe is deffered from the crime-fighting; take away the latter, and the rest becomes not very meaningfull. We don't pay police to patrol the streets for the sake of it, after all, let alone that would be their main objective.
"If tracking everyone were effective at fighting crime I would not object to it"
I think that says it all. If you iliminate all privacy, things would become far more easy to fight crime. In your viepoint, this would be acceptable. For me, however, this gives me the creeps; to have privacy is a form of freedom, and I despise the notion that it is ok to give away freedom to gain security, unless I chose to do so myself.
Which is the crux of the problem: I have no problems with you giving away all your privacy, but I don't acknowledge the right of anyone else (unless by courtorder) to restrict my freedoms if I don't agree with it.
I see privacy-infringements as intrusions; and if you violate one of my freedoms, why couldn't I violate one of yours? You either respect that other persons have rights, including the right of privacy, or you don't.
"the idea that you should have this right of privacy seems strange to me"
That much is clear. But ultimately, it doesn't matter too much if it is clear to you or not, as long as you acknowledge it is a right. If you don't, then why would anyone have to respect any of your rights?
"I still do not see why a child not attending school should remain private, from the instituion or from law enforcement, and it would seem neither do you."
I have tried to explain this depends on how you see the right on privacy. Your problem is, as I suspected before, and you now have clearly said yourself, that you don't understand the right on privacy. If privacy is not an issue for you, then obviously, there can't be a problem when it is violated.
My viewpoint on it is, that EVERY person, in principle, has a right of privacy, be it students, or yes, even criminals. If you don't acknowledge that right, then it is impossible for you to see why there might be problems with some laws or issues.
Let's say I live in the 19th century and I claim all people are free and shouldn't be a slave, and therefor laws that make negros slaves are violating that right. If then a slave-holder would say he doesn't understand the problem why negros shouldn't be slaves (which happend enough in that time) then what can anyone say, as long as he doesn't recognise the right of negros to be free? Maybe he could say "I come from a small village, and everyone has black slaves", but would it be convincing as an argument that, because something was like that in a small village, it should be like that everywhere for everyone? When taking away anyone's freedom, even if you are not directly affected by it (because you're white, or because you're not a truant or criminal) it STILL is something that is not right and should be fought.
Because ultimately, you (used generic here
It is basically a clash of opinions, but mine has the advantage that it leaves the possibility for everyone to do as he pleases with that right or opinion (including not making use of it), while yours impose it on others. I would claim the former is the better.
Well, first of all, I'm a bit unclear about the tenure of your post. You DO realise I was being ironic, I hope?
,so that it becomes easier to go forth with their main objective, namely to impart knowledge, it's also not a problem for the police to track everyone so it becomes easier to go forth with their main objective; fighting crime.
But, to respond in earnest; when following the reasoning of the parent poster (you) the analogue is perfectly viable.
The police job is NOT to patrol streets, it is to fight crime. You are confusing the means with the endgoal.
Thus, if it is not a problem for teachers to auto-track students
While you seem to dispute it, the principle is exactly the same, it's just the degree that differs. But once you accept your basic reasoning, you have no ground to counterargument 'more of the same'. (Exept maybe by biased opinion when you think they are invading *your* privacy).
Your last question has no answer, because: why should anything be a private matter? As I said, the answer is subjective in nature; it depends on how an individual fills in privacy (and to what extend).
"What is the reasoning behind creating Netscape,when firefox already exists? Is it for name sake?"
No, the reason is not name sake, it's just sake.
They had too much when deciding the faith of Netscape, and, just as in the hi-tech area, they are no match for the japanese spirit.
So rather then have police who is underpaid, overworked and likely to have low motivation carry out a labour intensive task like patrolling the streets, why don't we make it mandatory from birth to be tagged with an epidermal device so that everyone can be followed their entire life, if needed to?
Someone tell me the problem?
I think, if you don't value privacy, there is never a problem.
"ask any coder with a "donate" button, you'll see"
I'm afraid that is an overgeneralisation. It's true that OSS projects with a large userbase such as linux and firefox can generate a considerable amount of money, while this is harder for small 'lone coder' type of OSS. Yet, the basic thing is to captivate users, to make something they really want (and want to see continued), and this can be done without a huge userbase too.
Apart from a large userbase, the second way of getting money is to have a 'fan' base. An analoge example would be of 'trekkies'; while not a huge mass, they are fanatic enough for the series that they become economically interesting.
Take the example of Freenet for example. This project is relatively small, it doesn't come close to grand projects as linux and firefox, and its userbase isn't all that huge neither. Yet, it has a small group of die-hards and invokes enough interest on its own, to be able to pay Toad, the main developer - and it has done now for a considerable time. He doesn't earn money like he would in the private sector, but he does have enough for a decent living.
So, it IS quite possible to live from OSS: either you manage to get a large userbase, or you manage to get a profound interest of a small group of fans.
If they invade peoples' computer without permission and remove P2P programs (which aren't illegal on itself) just like that, they'll get sued themselves. Even if they wouldn't be breaking some law, which is probable, with all the cyberlaws flying around.
When I read the /. comments of the article, I thought it was going to be a higly biased piece of crap, a bit like SCO trying to claim they are the poor victims of the bad OSS-crowd.
;-) the comments itself are idiotic: the article in question is very good, clear, and contains a high degree of logic and rationale. While my first thought was a bit 'how dares he attack one of the great accomplishments of the Net', I must say he makes very, very convincing arguments. Infact, after reflection, I think he's basically right.
To my surprise (ok, maybe I shouldn't have been, after all this time slashdorring
I too always thought that more eyes would mean better results, because...well, because we had the example of other (FL)OSS projects, like Linux. So how comes it isn't working (not very good at least) with the wikipedia? I think because firstly, to create, maintain and edit linuxcode, one has to know it in the first place. To some pretty high degree, people who are capable of coding are already experts to some level. In linux develoment, you can't just hop in, you have to prove that you at least have knowledge of the subject (which is derived from the assessment of the code given).
Furthermore, they have a product that has to work, and work better. You can actually look if it still works (better), something that can't be done in the wikipedia. I mean, make a totally crappy code, and the program won't work (or much worse); a clear indication something is wrong and that the new code is not right. Make a totally crappy page and you don't really have any objective measurement to see if it's better or worse, in an objective way. Sure, maybe experts would notice, but let's face it, even experts disagree often, and, more importantly as I (and the author of the article) said; a wikipedia isn't governed by experts. Even when an occasional expert may correct it, it's likely that some time later, a mediocre would-be ninkenpoop would edit it back in mediocrity.
I think the author made a very good point, and one that the current wikipediasystem will be unable to correct. The population, also in intelligence and intellect and even mere fact-knowing follows the curve of Gauss; meaning, that the majority of the populace are situated in the middle. The best example to demonstrate is that of IQ: the percentile of 80 to 120 (where 100 is the median) encompasses the vast majority, whereas the more smart and the more stupid make out an increasing litlle part.
Thus, it is easy to see that, if the populace is divided along the Gausscurve, people that are only moderatly knowledgable make out the vast majority, and since the wikipedia is open for all to edit, the bulk of the editors/users/etc. are going to be mediocre (as in: diverging to the median). So, even if a good article of an expert is going to be made, after a while, it will not become exellent, but will become more mediocre, just as the author says.
He does forget to mention, though, that the opposite is also through: the really bad articles will move towards the median too, so those WILL improve (but only to a certain extent). In the end, the whole wikipedia will, seen as a whole, wobble around mediocrity; not really bad, but not really good neither. I think this is, though a theory, probably an essential one. It's is impossible to break that trend, unless one has 1)a way to objectively see if an article is better, 2)there is a way of giving a higher degree of (strict) editing to the experts, which can be done on beforehand (by actually contacting experts), or by having a controlling function that lets editing be depended on the worth -determined by peers - of the articles.
Point 1 is going to be very difficult, because I don't see any way in which to objectively view which page is the better one, exept maybe by actually refering to real encyclopedia's (and thus, indirectly from experts). The difficulties with pages of knowledge and facts is that they can't be shown to be true (or better) or not, con
Indeed.
:-)
Well, to make it more clear: I was talking about such a system for all patents in general, and for improving the IP issues in the USA.
One can argument to be for patents, and copyright, but patents for software and businessmethods are really a super-bad idea. The reasons why have been said many times over, and ffii has good pointers to it too. It's better to prevent the disease then trying to cure the patient, so I hope software patents never happen in Europe.
However, as a general idea to improve the patents and copyright-mess, something along the line I suggest would be an improvement, me thinks (certainly compaired to the current system in the USA). Sure, it won't stop litigation, but I think nothing will.
Anyway...does anyone know when the big showdown in the euro-pariament is going to be? I think it's possible to defeat the pro-software-patent lobby, but we'll need to gather all forces. If we beat them this time, I don't think it will come through (at least as an european directive) this decade.
Alas, it would be better if a directive was adopted that clearly and actively forbids softwarepatents. I don't care what the EPO or the commision says; they will always try to get it through some way, unless it's clearly forbidden.
Knowing human (and corporate) nature, I think you have a point in your first argument. However, the question is rather how to improve the system, not how to make it perfect (if that is even possible).
One could argue for no patents or indefinite ones, but a more balanced system seems more realistic.
I think a system in the lines I said would be fairly good, or at least a considerable improvement. Yes, big companies would probably gobble up small ones (even one they created themselves) if they profit in it. But when exactly would that be? I note that in my system it has to be renewed every 5 years, so if they created a company, had a small fee to pay (which was there intent), then they STILL had to pay big time for the next renewal.
Maybe they could create new ones, then buy them up again, etc., ad infinitum, but realistically spoken, such selling (or creating) and buying (or gobbling up) their own companies every 5 years for every patent will cost a lot too. Costs that companies which ARE small, don't have to make. So even in the worst case scenario, it still is a corrective mechanism.
In any case, patents and other IP that isn't commercially viable would become available to the public much sooner. It doesn't change the fact that the more rich, the more benefits/possibilities one has to get what one wants, but that's true for everything, even criminal legal procedures. Rich people can afford more and better lawyers, and thus have more chance of getting away with something, even in a perfect democratic non-corrupt state/legislature.
One can try to improve things (such as pro-deo lawyers), but I don't think it's actually possible to completely root out this sort of unfairness.
Well, both parent posters have a point.
Maybe a system would be best where patents and copyright (etc.) is granted (exept for software and businessmethods, obviously) for a period of 5 years, being renewable every 5 years untill a total of 20 years. Each time the fee could get up, say from 1000 to 5000 to 25000 to 125000.
With an adequate social correction-mechanism, which allows individuals and small companies to do it for less (for instance 1/10th for an individual developer), and augmenting it depending on the size of the corporation, the problem you and some other poster mention would be greatly diminuished.
In that case, the prime purpose of lingering patents and copyrights that go on almost indefinately or no1 even knows exactly who has the IP rights (with as consequence that many works just go wasted and become lost for society), vanish, while at the same time there is a system in place that gives a more equal chance for small companies/individuals to be able to file patents and protect patents as well.