Using semantic web tools, this can be achieved with reification of statements, and a network of trust. It's also the future of wikipedia, or at least it should be.
No, it would imply not granting them to anyone without negotiation, which is exactly what happens.
The right to do something with my work and my property (like building a bicycle) belongs to me. How exactly do you inventing the bicycle deprives me of that right... how is it that you have to grant it to me?
It can be bought and sold, created and destroyed, transferred and assigned, possessed and dispossessed.
The patent is a bundle of right, and a bundle of right is property, but these rights where expropriated. If a patent is property, it is stolen property.
Property is the power to exclude.
You are 100% correct, I am pleased we agree on this very important matter. I should add that any right is a right to exclude.
Ignoring your Godwin
How convenient. Godwin involves comparing you with Hitler, I didn't. You made the most crude legal positivist statement in your comment. The classical way to remind people that legal positivism is wrong and immoral is to remind them of Nazi Germany.
I assume you also believe you have the right to live because your government says so? Atta slave!
the definition of property was never changed, so that would not be the case
We agree on the definition of property, but governments do not decide who property rights belong to. No more than I can say "your life belongs to me" and force you to serve me. Rights are natural, they derive from self-ownerhsip and homesteading, not from what a bunch of ruling thugs arbitrarily decide.
You can indeed own legal rights to prevent everyone from copying your invention, but that would imply buying those rights from everyone. Merely filing a patent does not legitimately grants you right over what other people can do with their property. The whole idea of a patent is that you homestead an "invention" and thus that you can exclude others from it, this is, as I said, making the assumption that an invention is property.
Property is nothing more or less than a government-backed set of exclusive rights.
Would you say Nazi Germany did not steal anything from the Jews since they got to define property ?
No. No one can own a patent, not a person, not the public, not a corporation, not the government, not NASA. An invention is not property, it cannot be owned. Replicating a process does not infringe on property rights.
You can get some energy from the wave, but believing this is going to be cost efficient against, say, buying it from the grid is a bit ridiculous. No they won't save anything on energy doing that.
If they do save something, it's at most the cost of transporting energy from offshore to onshore, as any other saving would be arbitraged away.
Getting data and money off the hands of criminal organizations (aka governments) is a much more interesting consequence.
The only way one could recover data here would be play on small change in alignment of the head to see what was before the 0, however, the instruction specifically prevent disassembling the hard drive... why do they even ship it then ?
I'm pretty sure it's actually better if the satellite *is* moving, the point of SR is to combine different pictures. Parallax at this height ? I don't think so...
The only reason it's evil is because it ultimately relies on copyright law. This exclusivity agreement would be worthless if Google couldn't prosecute people using the images they display to provide a competing service.
In NYC where I live, the rent per square foot is outrageous, but fortunately my salary is high. If you compute the space and time it takes me to recycle, there's no way it's efficient. I'd much rather be paying for someone to do the recycling downstream.
The problem goes a bit deeper, I have to deal with a terribly bad trash collection company provided by the city of New York. The residents of the street are not free to hire another company to do it, or if they do, they will not get back the tax-money used to fund the deficient collection system.
If the government funded councils didn't force collection, the roads would be clogged.
I never saw a mall clogged with trashes, I never saw Disney Land clogged with trashes, I never saw gated communities clogged with trashed. New York City, you have to hop between the trash on the sidewalk. Get a clue.
Natural law determines what is a crime is what isn't. It relies on few self-evident axioms, we own ourselves (we're not slaves) and we own the product of our labor combined with nature.
The core of the problem is there is no duty to recycle. No one sees a problem with neighbor reporting a murder, yet you seem to see a problem with neighbor reporting failure to recycle.
The problem is not with the denunciation per se, but the fact that the law is unjust, and the sole result of a coercive monopoly on trash collection, aided by an ecological agenda undermining individual freedom.
You should have screamed when recycling became mandatory, you should have screamed at the monopoly on roads and trash collection.
Obviously the danger with these schemes is that the government will push more unjust law, and use its own citizens to report on other's violations.
The only way this works is because people have a false reverence towards the state, they believe that by making law, it has the power to make just what is unjust, and unjust what is just.
From experience, most people on Slashdot have a good intuition, nevertheless when pressed a little they fall back on a positivist view of law, giving governments the authority to define what is and is not a crime for example. Sad.
The idea of repaying society is stupid. Hans did not attack "society", he did not murder "society", "society" doesn't even exist, it's a floating abstraction.
Criminals have a debt to their victim and only to them. The government should be ashamed to steal from the victim it's right to justice. Accusation should be led by the victim's family, not by the state.
Slashdot Mirror
And how do you educate people without trustable knowledge ?
Using semantic web tools, this can be achieved with reification of statements, and a network of trust. It's also the future of wikipedia, or at least it should be.
The right to do something with my work and my property (like building a bicycle) belongs to me. How exactly do you inventing the bicycle deprives me of that right... how is it that you have to grant it to me?
The patent is a bundle of right, and a bundle of right is property, but these rights where expropriated. If a patent is property, it is stolen property.
You are 100% correct, I am pleased we agree on this very important matter. I should add that any right is a right to exclude.
How convenient. Godwin involves comparing you with Hitler, I didn't. You made the most crude legal positivist statement in your comment. The classical way to remind people that legal positivism is wrong and immoral is to remind them of Nazi Germany.
I assume you also believe you have the right to live because your government says so? Atta slave!
We agree on the definition of property, but governments do not decide who property rights belong to. No more than I can say "your life belongs to me" and force you to serve me. Rights are natural, they derive from self-ownerhsip and homesteading, not from what a bunch of ruling thugs arbitrarily decide.
You can indeed own legal rights to prevent everyone from copying your invention, but that would imply buying those rights from everyone. Merely filing a patent does not legitimately grants you right over what other people can do with their property. The whole idea of a patent is that you homestead an "invention" and thus that you can exclude others from it, this is, as I said, making the assumption that an invention is property.
Would you say Nazi Germany did not steal anything from the Jews since they got to define property ?
No. No one can own a patent, not a person, not the public, not a corporation, not the government, not NASA. An invention is not property, it cannot be owned. Replicating a process does not infringe on property rights.
You can get some energy from the wave, but believing this is going to be cost efficient against, say, buying it from the grid is a bit ridiculous. No they won't save anything on energy doing that.
If they do save something, it's at most the cost of transporting energy from offshore to onshore, as any other saving would be arbitraged away.
Getting data and money off the hands of criminal organizations (aka governments) is a much more interesting consequence.
Can't mod parent up, but that's there's nothing more to add.
This is your one shot at getting laid, use it tonight, or lose it.
please be next !
The very essence of DNA is self replication.
The only way one could recover data here would be play on small change in alignment of the head to see what was before the 0, however, the instruction specifically prevent disassembling the hard drive... why do they even ship it then ?
Yes.
Illegal != bad though.
ls wife /dev/hills/body
ls -A wife
ls -A body
ls -A body
sudo ls -A body
Password:
Ok ok,
Oh sure, it worked so well for the American auto industry !
I'm pretty sure it's actually better if the satellite *is* moving, the point of SR is to combine different pictures.
Parallax at this height ? I don't think so...
Riiiight. Hence the corporate taxes.
I can think of a few loopholes around this regulation.
What about taking many low resolution images of the same area and combine them later using super resolution?
Maybe the satellite company wouldn't afford a satellite if it didn't sell exclusive rights to the pictures.
I'm not saying the whole thing isn't evil, it's just a little more complicated than you make it appear.
The only reason it's evil is because it ultimately relies on copyright law. This exclusivity agreement would be worthless if Google couldn't prosecute people using the images they display to provide a competing service.
In NYC where I live, the rent per square foot is outrageous, but fortunately my salary is high. If you compute the space and time it takes me to recycle, there's no way it's efficient. I'd much rather be paying for someone to do the recycling downstream.
The problem goes a bit deeper, I have to deal with a terribly bad trash collection company provided by the city of New York. The residents of the street are not free to hire another company to do it, or if they do, they will not get back the tax-money used to fund the deficient collection system.
Don't we all?
I never saw a mall clogged with trashes, I never saw Disney Land clogged with trashes, I never saw gated communities clogged with trashed. New York City, you have to hop between the trash on the sidewalk. Get a clue.
Natural law determines what is a crime is what isn't. It relies on few self-evident axioms, we own ourselves (we're not slaves) and we own the product of our labor combined with nature.
The core of the problem is there is no duty to recycle. No one sees a problem with neighbor reporting a murder, yet you seem to see a problem with neighbor reporting failure to recycle.
The problem is not with the denunciation per se, but the fact that the law is unjust, and the sole result of a coercive monopoly on trash collection, aided by an ecological agenda undermining individual freedom.
You should have screamed when recycling became mandatory, you should have screamed at the monopoly on roads and trash collection.
Obviously the danger with these schemes is that the government will push more unjust law, and use its own citizens to report on other's violations.
The only way this works is because people have a false reverence towards the state, they believe that by making law, it has the power to make just what is unjust, and unjust what is just.
From experience, most people on Slashdot have a good intuition, nevertheless when pressed a little they fall back on a positivist view of law, giving governments the authority to define what is and is not a crime for example. Sad.
The idea of repaying society is stupid. Hans did not attack "society", he did not murder "society", "society" doesn't even exist, it's a floating abstraction.
Criminals have a debt to their victim and only to them. The government should be ashamed to steal from the victim it's right to justice. Accusation should be led by the victim's family, not by the state.
Hum, you do realize that my first point was precisely that individual votes don't matter. I didn't say "each vote matters", I said the opposite.