"Prior restraint" means restraint prior to a decision on the status of the particular speech (or action) in question, and is never permitted. (An example of prior restraint would be cops demanding that a bookstore remove objectionable magazines on the grounds of obscenity before any judicial ruling had been made on those specific magazines.) But once a judicial decision has been made, even if it's still under appeal, it can no longer be "prior restraint."
Why does cooperation make more sense? There is no support to that premise, and therefore, the statement is not using the correct logic that is necessary to support a valid arguement.
I would counter that cooperation does not make more sense, as proven that collective societies cannot compete with competitive societies by the fall of the collectively based governments in Eastern Europe. Take that further with China, which arguably has much more access to resources than the United States, but the United States has used competition to exploit the resources available to it in a more efficient manner and thus produce an economy and standard of living for its citizens that China will not equal for decades.
Sino-Soviet style governments are/were collectively-based in name only, and are therefore not a valid refutation of collectivity. Furthermore, you're basing your value of "success vs. failure" in purely competitive terms, thereby begging the question of what premises you're approaching the question with. Why is it incumbent upon cooperative societies to compete with competitive ones, instead of competitive societies cooperating with cooperative societies?
More generally, intellectual property is one more way for rich countries to extract wealth from poor countries.
Sigh. "From each according to his ability... to each according to his need." "Why can't we all just be even?"
There are many points to criticize in this article/chapter. This is not one of them. Does this sound better to you?: "To each according to his ability to take, from each according to his weakness." Western states appropriating knowledge that has been developed over time by poor cultures, then turning around and charging the countries they appropriated that knowledge from is theft, pure and simple, especially when the rules are set by the nations doing the taking.
The "few hundred" figure is pretty questionable even if you don't count all the indirect beneficiaries of IP laws.
Oh! Now I see!! Let's just collect more taxes and subsidize everybody that wants to be creative! I mean, why should the truely creative people get paid more than people who's stuff sucks and no one would actually pay for it. Yeah, this way both Mr. Speilberg and I will make movies, and we'll get paid the same! Cool!!
This argument is refuted early on, but I guess you skipped that part. Let me refresh your memory:
Is the market value of a piece of an intellectual product a reasonable indicator of a person's contribution? Certainly not. [...] markets only work once property rights have been established, so it is circular to argue that the market can be used to measure intellectual contributions. Hettinger summarises this point in this fashion: "The notion that a laborer is naturally entitled as a matter of right to receive the market value of her product is a myth. To what extent individual laborers should be allowed to receive the market value of their products is a question of social policy."
And your wrap-up is acknowledged by the author himself as the most convincing argument for intellectual property.
I'm not convinced by the argument to abolish all IP laws, but in a society where these sorts of questions are routinely determined more by a comprompise between extreme factions rather than a true meeting of the minds, I'd read this piece as more a rhetorical argument in opposition to, for instance, those who'd extend patent protection to business models or basketball moves than an earnest manifesto. In that light, it gives one something to think about rather than just something to reflexively rebut.
As a matter of fact, I've done film lighting for several years, and sure, it's an inherently collaborative medium, but that doesn't mean that one individual isn't ultimately in control of the final product. In the same way that other IP authors absorb the influence of previous work and rely on a social infrastructure stretching back for millennia, a director (sometimes producer, depends) absorbs and filters input from various crew departments and cast members.
In any case, the MPAA != "studio system." Without the MPAA, there wouldn't be Oscars or a rating system or CSS, but there would still be corporations (studios) established for the purpose of investing in film production.
MacinTouch hardly belongs on that list. It's a legitimate news site, not a rumor mill. The only story they posted on the supposed new cube was in relation to the legal threats against MOSR.
The best evidence for the events of Total Recall being real is this: no fantasy-vacation business concern would sell fantasy vacations that cast doubt on their own integrity/competence/loyalty, much less vacations that essentially enforce permanent insanity on their customers; without a clean transition from reality to fantasy and back, Arnold would never again in his life know if he was still under or not.
Oops, what I meant to say, in response to a different posting no less, was that entrapment laws apply only to cops. Eliciting and publishing damaging information isn't libel, because it's the target's own statements that are damaging. Entrapment means a cop can't encourage you to do something illegal and then arrest you for it.
Nixon got in trouble because of what his tapes revealed, not for making tapes in the first place. Anti-taping laws apply to telephone conversations (and rock concerts.) Other than that, you can wear a wire wherever you want, especially in public.
How can anyone copyright a list of URLs? I was under the impression that one could only copyright something that was the creative product of an author. Clearly the authors of filtering software did not "author" those URLs, so those blacklists shouldn't be copyrightable.
Unless they simply encrypted the blacklists and copyrighted/patented the algorithm. Is this a more accurate description?
Not that this couldn't happen through deftly-applied FUD, but investors have an interest in getting good information; they get nothing out of writing off a potential gold mine based on, for instance, a 60 Minutes story about one company.
No one wrote off the entire automobile industry based on Pinto explosions, no one wrote off Colgate-Palmolive based on one story about a dentist fondling his patients, no one (or no one with any juice, anyway) should write off the Linux based on LinuxOne. Any individual press outlet, knowing that their credibility is at stake, would hesitate to make blanket conclusions based on one instance. CNN/FN != Hard Copy.
Sounds like something's "majorly wrong" with your ISP, as I've set up dozens of OS 9 machines to connect to various dialups and haven't had any OT issues.
As a grip/electrician myself, I certainly do care about the names of my co-workers, but beyond that, being listed in a movie's credits is often the only way to have a confirmable resume. Production companies often don't exist for more than one movie, so the only way to know if someone really worked on what they say they worked on is those credits.
Anyway, what do you care if there are 40,000 names scrolling by after the movie's over? No one's forcing you to sit there and read them all, and it doesn't make your ticket more expensive.
Thurow can't come up with a single example of successfully implemented self-regulation without government coercion? How about the MPAA ratings system? The Comics Code Authority? That's just right off the top of my head. (There may have been blustery grandstanding politicians weighing in before those examples were instituted, but any club the gov't may have been carrying would've rung pretty hollow if they'd tried to use it. In this instance, the government has no club at all. What are they going to do, drive all e-business out of the country to Cayman Islands subsidiaries?) So right there he's full of shit. You could even argue that any industry that's ever implemented an "industry standard" of any kind has adopted a self-regulatory mechanism of sorts.
Furthermore, the Internet isn't a single industry, and attempts to draw parallels between a group of related companies policing themselves and a vague association (the annoyingly-acronymed GDBe) trying to police everyone else are inapt. I think the most that would result from the GDBe's efforts is maybe some kind of "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval for e-commerce sites that adhere to certain privacy/consumer protection/etc. guidelines, and possibly some beneficial anti-governmental intrusion lobbying. So Thurow may have a point, although not the one he thought.
This was touched on by this Scientific American article a few months back. It covers another project looking for useful ways to index the Web. They came up with a similar hub/cluster topology based on authorities, which are sites that a lot of other sites link to, and hubs, which have large collections of links to authorities. Unfortunately, the cool illustration that was in the print version didn't make it online. (You can pretty much skip the first two sections of the article unless you want to read the authors' grossly incorrect definition of spamming; it doesn't get interesting until the "Searching With Hyperlinks" subhed.)
No, the fingerprint is like a checksum for the public key. It's used to verify the validity of a key received from someone you know. You're supposed to contact the key's owner in person and have him/her read you their fingerprint. Then you can vouch for the key by signing it, and people who trust you can trust that key without having to call the owner themselves. A few iterations of this create a "web of trust" with only minimal personal verification.
This is one of the reasons PGP only works really well when a lot of people are using it. If a substantial web of trust isn't developed, you have to verify a whole lot of public keys yourself. Or live in fear.
Apple has had technical certification for years. You need it to do warranty repairs, and you're supposed to have it if you work for an authorized service provider. But Macs are easy enough to fix that most in-house IT folks never bother to get certified, though.
And besides the fact that Intel sucks, Mac resistance has never been processor-based. It's always been resistance to the OS itself, and to a lesser extent the nonstandard hardware interfaces Apple used to use. (Nubus, ADB, two different non-VGA video connectors, etc.)
Apple is a minor player in the PC market the same way that Chrysler is a minor player in the automotive market. You bring up the old chestnut about software availability (How many different word processors or ftp clients do you want?) at the same time you point out that many developers develop for Wintel only because there's money to be made (How many shitty word processors or ftp clients do you want?). You criticize the "nannying" user interface, then go on to point out that that's exactly what your non-geek friends want. As far as games, game development has been resurgent on the Mac platform. This despite the inclusion of admittedly crappy ATI chipsets.
Most importantly: If you're developing for Linux, you're already not much more than a recompile away from developing for Mac OS X. You're already a Mac developer, whether you know it or not.
According to some Mac news site, an Apple rep claimed the upgrade-disabling was an unintentional by-product of some other fix. Whatever. Obviously, Apple hasn't made it "impossible" to upgrade B&W G3s, since an upgrade manufacturer would only have to come up with a minor firmware patch to remove the block. If Apple were so dead-set against users upgrading their processors, why did they move to ZIF sockets instead of welding the processor to the motherboard (a la the 7200?)
Consider a restraint that Congress, with State Department support, has placed on satellites launched by American companies: it is now illegal to take high-resolution pictures of Israel.
I didn't realize that US legal jurisdiction had been extended to a small chunk of orbital space above the other side of the planet. The author did note that this restriction could be easily surmounted by incorporating in someplace like the Cayman Islands -- why even bother passing legislation of this sort? Trying to increase the degree of ZOG paranoia amongst white supremacists?
Slashdot Mirror
"Prior restraint" means restraint prior to a decision on the status of the particular speech (or action) in question, and is never permitted. (An example of prior restraint would be cops demanding that a bookstore remove objectionable magazines on the grounds of obscenity before any judicial ruling had been made on those specific magazines.) But once a judicial decision has been made, even if it's still under appeal, it can no longer be "prior restraint."
Sino-Soviet style governments are/were collectively-based in name only, and are therefore not a valid refutation of collectivity. Furthermore, you're basing your value of "success vs. failure" in purely competitive terms, thereby begging the question of what premises you're approaching the question with. Why is it incumbent upon cooperative societies to compete with competitive ones, instead of competitive societies cooperating with cooperative societies?
There are many points to criticize in this article/chapter. This is not one of them. Does this sound better to you?: "To each according to his ability to take, from each according to his weakness." Western states appropriating knowledge that has been developed over time by poor cultures, then turning around and charging the countries they appropriated that knowledge from is theft, pure and simple, especially when the rules are set by the nations doing the taking.
The "few hundred" figure is pretty questionable even if you don't count all the indirect beneficiaries of IP laws.
This argument is refuted early on, but I guess you skipped that part. Let me refresh your memory:
And your wrap-up is acknowledged by the author himself as the most convincing argument for intellectual property.
I'm not convinced by the argument to abolish all IP laws, but in a society where these sorts of questions are routinely determined more by a comprompise between extreme factions rather than a true meeting of the minds, I'd read this piece as more a rhetorical argument in opposition to, for instance, those who'd extend patent protection to business models or basketball moves than an earnest manifesto. In that light, it gives one something to think about rather than just something to reflexively rebut.
As a matter of fact, I've done film lighting for several years, and sure, it's an inherently collaborative medium, but that doesn't mean that one individual isn't ultimately in control of the final product. In the same way that other IP authors absorb the influence of previous work and rely on a social infrastructure stretching back for millennia, a director (sometimes producer, depends) absorbs and filters input from various crew departments and cast members.
In any case, the MPAA != "studio system." Without the MPAA, there wouldn't be Oscars or a rating system or CSS, but there would still be corporations (studios) established for the purpose of investing in film production.
MacinTouch hardly belongs on that list. It's a legitimate news site, not a rumor mill. The only story they posted on the supposed new cube was in relation to the legal threats against MOSR.
The best evidence for the events of Total Recall being real is this: no fantasy-vacation business concern would sell fantasy vacations that cast doubt on their own integrity/competence/loyalty, much less vacations that essentially enforce permanent insanity on their customers; without a clean transition from reality to fantasy and back, Arnold would never again in his life know if he was still under or not.
Oops, what I meant to say, in response to a different posting no less, was that entrapment laws apply only to cops. Eliciting and publishing damaging information isn't libel, because it's the target's own statements that are damaging. Entrapment means a cop can't encourage you to do something illegal and then arrest you for it.
Nixon got in trouble because of what his tapes revealed, not for making tapes in the first place. Anti-taping laws apply to telephone conversations (and rock concerts.) Other than that, you can wear a wire wherever you want, especially in public.
I don't know the technical details, but I have watched porn DVDs where you can switch between "camera angles" during playback. So it is possible.
How can anyone copyright a list of URLs? I was under the impression that one could only copyright something that was the creative product of an author. Clearly the authors of filtering software did not "author" those URLs, so those blacklists shouldn't be copyrightable.
Unless they simply encrypted the blacklists and copyrighted/patented the algorithm. Is this a more accurate description?
Steve Case is the head of AOL, not Jeff Bezos. I will be mature and refrain from castigation.
Not that this couldn't happen through deftly-applied FUD, but investors have an interest in getting good information; they get nothing out of writing off a potential gold mine based on, for instance, a 60 Minutes story about one company.
No one wrote off the entire automobile industry based on Pinto explosions, no one wrote off Colgate-Palmolive based on one story about a dentist fondling his patients, no one (or no one with any juice, anyway) should write off the Linux based on LinuxOne. Any individual press outlet, knowing that their credibility is at stake, would hesitate to make blanket conclusions based on one instance. CNN/FN != Hard Copy.
Sounds like something's "majorly wrong" with your ISP, as I've set up dozens of OS 9 machines to connect to various dialups and haven't had any OT issues.
As a grip/electrician myself, I certainly do care about the names of my co-workers, but beyond that, being listed in a movie's credits is often the only way to have a confirmable resume. Production companies often don't exist for more than one movie, so the only way to know if someone really worked on what they say they worked on is those credits.
Anyway, what do you care if there are 40,000 names scrolling by after the movie's over? No one's forcing you to sit there and read them all, and it doesn't make your ticket more expensive.
The NYT link is already dead; try going the long way through wire.ap.org, pick one of the wire subscribers, look under the "tech" tab.
Since I can't moderate this (up,) just want to add "me, too."
Thurow can't come up with a single example of successfully implemented self-regulation without government coercion? How about the MPAA ratings system? The Comics Code Authority? That's just right off the top of my head. (There may have been blustery grandstanding politicians weighing in before those examples were instituted, but any club the gov't may have been carrying would've rung pretty hollow if they'd tried to use it. In this instance, the government has no club at all. What are they going to do, drive all e-business out of the country to Cayman Islands subsidiaries?) So right there he's full of shit. You could even argue that any industry that's ever implemented an "industry standard" of any kind has adopted a self-regulatory mechanism of sorts.
Furthermore, the Internet isn't a single industry, and attempts to draw parallels between a group of related companies policing themselves and a vague association (the annoyingly-acronymed GDBe) trying to police everyone else are inapt. I think the most that would result from the GDBe's efforts is maybe some kind of "Good Housekeeping" seal of approval for e-commerce sites that adhere to certain privacy/consumer protection/etc. guidelines, and possibly some beneficial anti-governmental intrusion lobbying. So Thurow may have a point, although not the one he thought.
This was touched on by this Scientific American article a few months back. It covers another project looking for useful ways to index the Web. They came up with a similar hub/cluster topology based on authorities, which are sites that a lot of other sites link to, and hubs, which have large collections of links to authorities. Unfortunately, the cool illustration that was in the print version didn't make it online. (You can pretty much skip the first two sections of the article unless you want to read the authors' grossly incorrect definition of spamming; it doesn't get interesting until the "Searching With Hyperlinks" subhed.)
No, the fingerprint is like a checksum for the public key. It's used to verify the validity of a key received from someone you know. You're supposed to contact the key's owner in person and have him/her read you their fingerprint. Then you can vouch for the key by signing it, and people who trust you can trust that key without having to call the owner themselves. A few iterations of this create a "web of trust" with only minimal personal verification.
This is one of the reasons PGP only works really well when a lot of people are using it. If a substantial web of trust isn't developed, you have to verify a whole lot of public keys yourself. Or live in fear.
Apple has had technical certification for years. You need it to do warranty repairs, and you're supposed to have it if you work for an authorized service provider. But Macs are easy enough to fix that most in-house IT folks never bother to get certified, though.
And besides the fact that Intel sucks, Mac resistance has never been processor-based. It's always been resistance to the OS itself, and to a lesser extent the nonstandard hardware interfaces Apple used to use. (Nubus, ADB, two different non-VGA video connectors, etc.)
Apple is a minor player in the PC market the same way that Chrysler is a minor player in the automotive market. You bring up the old chestnut about software availability (How many different word processors or ftp clients do you want?) at the same time you point out that many developers develop for Wintel only because there's money to be made (How many shitty word processors or ftp clients do you want?). You criticize the "nannying" user interface, then go on to point out that that's exactly what your non-geek friends want. As far as games, game development has been resurgent on the Mac platform. This despite the inclusion of admittedly crappy ATI chipsets.
Most importantly: If you're developing for Linux, you're already not much more than a recompile away from developing for Mac OS X. You're already a Mac developer, whether you know it or not.
According to some Mac news site, an Apple rep claimed the upgrade-disabling was an unintentional by-product of some other fix. Whatever. Obviously, Apple hasn't made it "impossible" to upgrade B&W G3s, since an upgrade manufacturer would only have to come up with a minor firmware patch to remove the block. If Apple were so dead-set against users upgrading their processors, why did they move to ZIF sockets instead of welding the processor to the motherboard (a la the 7200?)
Let's start with learning English.