Really? You need a citation for this? Have you been sitting up a rock? Apple claiming it invented multitouch [dailytech.com] is hardly anything new and certainly not surprising.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Nowhere in your linked article does Apple claim invention of multitouch.
As for Microsoft and the iMac ridiculous reply you had I won't bother as that is just laziness on your part if it isn't blatently obvious how Apple is buying up what they want rather than developing it in-house.
"Buying up what they want" does not equate to "taking all the credit," that's just business. Apple can buy up as much as they like, but that doesn't mean they are claiming invention. Again, basic language skills.
Feel free to blind yourself to the whims of Apple. I learned my lesson the hard way with Microsoft, I feel no need to relearn it with Apple.
Perhaps you should try learning basic logic and reading comprehension? Those would be much more valuable skills.
Yes, but what has that got to do with the legal definition of copyright? The law does not mean what you, personally, want to mean. It means what is written into law.
Now, copyright is a monopoly on the replication of a work of human creation. It limits everyone's right to copy, everyone's access to information -- everyone's freedom.
But the law never granted everybody a right to copy anything they might want to copy. So, you're arguing from a false premise. The law grants the exclusive right to copy to copyright holders (unless a particular work is in the Public Domain or otherwise not subject to copyright).
It is sensible to say, then: copyright must exist for the benefit of all people. Thus we must ask: does copyright accomplish this goal? Was it a good deal for the people, to trade a freedom for this potential of progress?
Well, that's a good question, but it doesn't alter the fact that copyright grants legal rights, not "privileges." In fact, the concept of "privilege" doesn't really exist in modern law.
People are waking up to the fact that, at least the way things are set now, it's a disastrous deal.
I think you must have a pretty loose definition of "disastrous" if you apply that term to copyright law. Are people losing their lives over it? I'm not a huge fan of copyright law as it stands, but your arguments are pretty overblown.
Yes, it worked out wonderfully for the people of the old USSR, Cuba, and even our friends in Venezuela, etc etc.
Do you have some kind of pathological addiction to strawmen or something?
Why is it so popular these days to think that adding directly-conflicting elements & principles from governments of countries & people that are less free, prosperous, powerful, and do less for the needy worldwide to the one country and government whose people ARE the most free, prosperous, powerful, and do the most for the needy worldwide is, somehow, a *good* idea?
That paragraph made no sense whatsoever.
The most I can interpret from it is that you somehow think that the only countries who have removed power from corporations to benefit the people are evil communist countries. Despite the fact that one of the reasons the USA is so successful is because of such regulations.
Oh, I dunno...maybe that silly old piece of paper crazy old people rant about that has some stupid "Article" or some such that goes something like; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (
So, how is the Federal government prohibited from regulating inter-state communication?
But that's just the racist, homophobic, religious-fanatic ramblings of old, dead, slave-owning, Deist white men that hated the poor, right?
No, it just sounds like you have no grip on reality. That has nothing to do with the "Founding Fathers." Just like pretty much everything you proclaimed as "fact" in previous posts is easily disproved, because your statements are false.
When has a government ever decided to completely stop regulating something once it starts? Although it may be possible to find an example with enough searching,
Well, there's that whole "where black people are allowed to eat" thing, for starters. I didn't have to do any searching at all for that one.
It is still the government, just a new form. In your example, that would make it a fascist government a la Mussolini.
Again, a strawman. You just redefine government to suit your new parameters. Anyway, isn't this exactly what you are proposing? You don't want government regulation - so the alternative is corporate fascism.
I clearly meant handing over power to, or allowing power to be taken by, government. There's no strawman... History is littered with examples of bad outcomes when governments are allowed too much power.
History is also littered with examples of private parties such as corporations having too much power and causing bad outcomes. History is also littered with good outcomes as a result of government taking power away from those private parties.
The government gaining regulatory power over the internet is handing them/allowing them to take, power.
When has the government ever not had the power to regulate the internet? Heck, it created the darn thing in the first place.
They are literally fly-by-night in that they literally flee and escape into the night when authorities come.
But that's fleeing, not flying. To literally be fly-by-night, they'd have to be airborne.
On a related note, my dictionary includes: "to flee or escape" as a definition of "fly". So even if you want to break down the fly-by-night idiom into its component parts, to flee is still a literal interpretation of fly.
I hold literal interpretations to a much higher standard than secondary definitions.
That word is very misleading; it should be called copy privilege, copy exclusivity, or copy monopoly.
Why?
It is a privilege, granted by the government in detriment of everyone's else right to copy
No, it is a right granted by the government. "Privilege" would imply that it's some kind of special reward, but (legally) it's not. It's a legal right.
The ultimate goal of copyright was as a richer public domain. It was for the benefit of ALL THE PEOPLE, not the artists', and certainly not the MAFIAA's.
And the mechanism for achieving that is the granting of rights.
If copyright has failed to give us a richer public domain, it has failed to fulfill its sole intended goal. Therefore, it must be abolished.
Wow, go off the deep-end much? What does that have to do with the legal definition of copyright? Do you usually just inject irrelevant statements into discussions?
The fact is that the current generation of parents were some of the woodstockers and Deadheads that perfected the art of concert going.
Ummm, anybody who was at Woodstock or followed the Grateful Dead around cannot reasonably be categorized as "the current generation of parents." They are grandparents now. So while technically they might be parents in the sense of having raised children, they are no longer actively raising their children.
You might be shocked to learn that "the current generation of parents" consists largely of people born in the 1980s or even the 1990s. The vast majority of whom have only the vaguest idea of what a "rock concert" is.
Although I'm guessing there will certainly be some economic impact, I'm also guessing it wouldn't be enough to drive any majors under.
How could it have any economic impact, when the status quo is basically net neutrality? It's not like anybody is currently making a profit from non-net-neutrality.
as it has been shown throughout history that once a government gains regulatory control over something, it always expands it's powers through the continual adding of new regulations
Always? Then how do you explain the periods of deregulation that happened during the 80s and 90s in many Western countries? Nice strawman, though.
Governments seek to expand their power, reach, and control. That's just a fact.
Except when they reduce their power, and hand it over to corporations, which is not uncommon. Nice strawman, though.
History shows that sort of thing never ends well for the people that allow too much of it to happen.
Where by "that sort of thing" you mean another strawman, right?
Breaking up an ISP would likely be met with a helluva lot more criticism from ISPs than imposing a few regs
Which is exactly my point. If the article is so worried about a few minor regulations, breaking up companies would be met with even more outrage about the Evil Communist Government Hippie Nazis.
I think It's pretty safe to assume if your on slashdot you probably haven't had experience with 10 one night stands in a single week.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you've had 10 one-night stands in a week, you don't live on the planet Earth, as there are only seven nights per week here.
As Wikipedia has shown, it's pretty easy for a small group of people to convincingly alter supposed factual information. In this particular case, the people most interested in manipulating the numbers are the same people who would most likely participate in the project (again, see Wikipedia). Those who are the most neutral or impartial are less likely to participate.
It sounds like this would be highly vulnerable to gaming. It's pretty easy to twist numbers to imply anything. The people who would be most interested in participating in such a scheme would probably be those who are also the most interested in 'cooking the books.' The impartial are probably not going to participate.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? You need a citation for this? Have you been sitting up a rock? Apple claiming it invented multitouch [dailytech.com] is hardly anything new and certainly not surprising.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Nowhere in your linked article does Apple claim invention of multitouch.
As for Microsoft and the iMac ridiculous reply you had I won't bother as that is just laziness on your part if it isn't blatently obvious how Apple is buying up what they want rather than developing it in-house.
"Buying up what they want" does not equate to "taking all the credit," that's just business. Apple can buy up as much as they like, but that doesn't mean they are claiming invention. Again, basic language skills.
Feel free to blind yourself to the whims of Apple. I learned my lesson the hard way with Microsoft, I feel no need to relearn it with Apple.
Perhaps you should try learning basic logic and reading comprehension? Those would be much more valuable skills.
Too often, what is legal is not moral.
Yes, but what has that got to do with the legal definition of copyright? The law does not mean what you, personally, want to mean. It means what is written into law.
Now, copyright is a monopoly on the replication of a work of human creation. It limits everyone's right to copy, everyone's access to information -- everyone's freedom.
But the law never granted everybody a right to copy anything they might want to copy. So, you're arguing from a false premise. The law grants the exclusive right to copy to copyright holders (unless a particular work is in the Public Domain or otherwise not subject to copyright).
It is sensible to say, then: copyright must exist for the benefit of all people. Thus we must ask: does copyright accomplish this goal? Was it a good deal for the people, to trade a freedom for this potential of progress?
Well, that's a good question, but it doesn't alter the fact that copyright grants legal rights, not "privileges." In fact, the concept of "privilege" doesn't really exist in modern law.
People are waking up to the fact that, at least the way things are set now, it's a disastrous deal.
I think you must have a pretty loose definition of "disastrous" if you apply that term to copyright law. Are people losing their lives over it? I'm not a huge fan of copyright law as it stands, but your arguments are pretty overblown.
Yes, it worked out wonderfully for the people of the old USSR, Cuba, and even our friends in Venezuela, etc etc.
Do you have some kind of pathological addiction to strawmen or something?
Why is it so popular these days to think that adding directly-conflicting elements & principles from governments of countries & people that are less free, prosperous, powerful, and do less for the needy worldwide to the one country and government whose people ARE the most free, prosperous, powerful, and do the most for the needy worldwide is, somehow, a *good* idea?
That paragraph made no sense whatsoever.
The most I can interpret from it is that you somehow think that the only countries who have removed power from corporations to benefit the people are evil communist countries. Despite the fact that one of the reasons the USA is so successful is because of such regulations.
Oh, I dunno...maybe that silly old piece of paper crazy old people rant about that has some stupid "Article" or some such that goes something like; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (
So, how is the Federal government prohibited from regulating inter-state communication?
But that's just the racist, homophobic, religious-fanatic ramblings of old, dead, slave-owning, Deist white men that hated the poor, right?
No, it just sounds like you have no grip on reality. That has nothing to do with the "Founding Fathers." Just like pretty much everything you proclaimed as "fact" in previous posts is easily disproved, because your statements are false.
I didn't say Apple claimed it.
Except that you did. Perhaps you should read your own posts?
When has a government ever decided to completely stop regulating something once it starts? Although it may be possible to find an example with enough searching,
Well, there's that whole "where black people are allowed to eat" thing, for starters. I didn't have to do any searching at all for that one.
It is still the government, just a new form. In your example, that would make it a fascist government a la Mussolini.
Again, a strawman. You just redefine government to suit your new parameters. Anyway, isn't this exactly what you are proposing? You don't want government regulation - so the alternative is corporate fascism.
I clearly meant handing over power to, or allowing power to be taken by, government. There's no strawman... History is littered with examples of bad outcomes when governments are allowed too much power.
History is also littered with examples of private parties such as corporations having too much power and causing bad outcomes. History is also littered with good outcomes as a result of government taking power away from those private parties.
The government gaining regulatory power over the internet is handing them/allowing them to take, power.
When has the government ever not had the power to regulate the internet? Heck, it created the darn thing in the first place.
They are literally fly-by-night in that they literally flee and escape into the night when authorities come.
But that's fleeing, not flying. To literally be fly-by-night, they'd have to be airborne.
On a related note, my dictionary includes: "to flee or escape" as a definition of "fly". So even if you want to break down the fly-by-night idiom into its component parts, to flee is still a literal interpretation of fly.
I hold literal interpretations to a much higher standard than secondary definitions.
That word is very misleading; it should be called copy privilege, copy exclusivity, or copy monopoly.
Why?
It is a privilege, granted by the government in detriment of everyone's else right to copy
No, it is a right granted by the government. "Privilege" would imply that it's some kind of special reward, but (legally) it's not. It's a legal right.
The ultimate goal of copyright was as a richer public domain. It was for the benefit of ALL THE PEOPLE, not the artists', and certainly not the MAFIAA's.
And the mechanism for achieving that is the granting of rights.
If copyright has failed to give us a richer public domain, it has failed to fulfill its sole intended goal. Therefore, it must be abolished.
Wow, go off the deep-end much? What does that have to do with the legal definition of copyright? Do you usually just inject irrelevant statements into discussions?
If you're scared off by Pocari Sweat, then you don't want to know about Men's Pocky
Only if they also provide suicide booths for when you don't have enough money for refreshing crack.
The fact is that the current generation of parents were some of the woodstockers and Deadheads that perfected the art of concert going.
Ummm, anybody who was at Woodstock or followed the Grateful Dead around cannot reasonably be categorized as "the current generation of parents." They are grandparents now. So while technically they might be parents in the sense of having raised children, they are no longer actively raising their children.
You might be shocked to learn that "the current generation of parents" consists largely of people born in the 1980s or even the 1990s. The vast majority of whom have only the vaguest idea of what a "rock concert" is.
then would CowboyNeal be the guilty party
Stupid question. CowboyNeal is always the guilty party. It says so in the Constitution.
People keep making the mistake of thinking of copyright as a right - which is absurd.
How is it absurd? Even though it's temporary, it's a right granted by the government. It's right there in the word - copyright.
They are trying to nab fly-by-night (literally) vendors
They are literally flying at night? Then either they must be some kind of human-bird hybrid, or the airfares would seriously eat into their profits.
You just don't get invited to the right parties, do you? Trust me, it's possible to do that. ... sorry
Oh - you mean one partner for the WHOLE night
Well, yeah. "One night stand" has a different meaning than "casual sex." It's basically a one night passionate relationship.
Although I'm guessing there will certainly be some economic impact, I'm also guessing it wouldn't be enough to drive any majors under.
How could it have any economic impact, when the status quo is basically net neutrality? It's not like anybody is currently making a profit from non-net-neutrality.
as it has been shown throughout history that once a government gains regulatory control over something, it always expands it's powers through the continual adding of new regulations
Always? Then how do you explain the periods of deregulation that happened during the 80s and 90s in many Western countries? Nice strawman, though.
Governments seek to expand their power, reach, and control. That's just a fact.
Except when they reduce their power, and hand it over to corporations, which is not uncommon. Nice strawman, though.
History shows that sort of thing never ends well for the people that allow too much of it to happen.
Where by "that sort of thing" you mean another strawman, right?
Breaking up an ISP would likely be met with a helluva lot more criticism from ISPs than imposing a few regs
Which is exactly my point. If the article is so worried about a few minor regulations, breaking up companies would be met with even more outrage about the Evil Communist Government Hippie Nazis.
I think It's pretty safe to assume if your on slashdot you probably haven't had experience with 10 one night stands in a single week.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you've had 10 one-night stands in a week, you don't live on the planet Earth, as there are only seven nights per week here.
That is why they'll have to pry my dial-up modem from my cold, dead fingers!
I'm sorry to hear of your passing.... but how did you type that post with your dead fingers? Dead man switch attached to a script?
So if there are few choices for many now, we fix this by eliminating what choices that do exist?
How would Net Neutrality eliminate choices of vendor? Are you claiming that ISPs would go out of business because of NN legislation?
So why not solve the problem directly by breaking up ISPs that have market dominance in particular regions?
Wouldn't that be met with the same criticism that this article makes - the government meddling with business?
As Wikipedia has shown, it's pretty easy for a small group of people to convincingly alter supposed factual information. In this particular case, the people most interested in manipulating the numbers are the same people who would most likely participate in the project (again, see Wikipedia). Those who are the most neutral or impartial are less likely to participate.
It sounds like this would be highly vulnerable to gaming. It's pretty easy to twist numbers to imply anything. The people who would be most interested in participating in such a scheme would probably be those who are also the most interested in 'cooking the books.' The impartial are probably not going to participate.
Actually I didn't say that Apple invented the touch-screen tablet. That was an invention entirely your own.
So, what exactly did you mean by the following comment?
"Except for the Archos tablet which was on the market for a whole year prior to the ipad complete with multi-touch."
???
Apple claimed to the be the first computer to run without a floppy disk drive.
[citation needed]
They claimed that they invented multi-touch
[citation needed]
Apple in many ways is behaving like Microsoft in the 1990s. They buy what they want, then take all the credit.
[citation needed]
Twenty Three years later than what? Maybe you mean 23 years *after* Stanley Kubrick envisioned the iPad in 1968 for the movie 2001?
Don't you mean after Arthur C. Clarke envisioned it prior to 1968 during the writing/development of the novel/film?
Just like with the iPod Apple has successfully rewritten history to make everyone believe the iPod was the first MP3 player
when did Apple ever claim that? Sounds like you are the one rewriting history.
Now they've convinced people the iPad was first, but it was not.
Again, when did Apple ever say that? All of this is in your fevered imagination.