I'm not sure why you think I think that. I certainly never said any such thing.
You clearly did. You equated an exact copy of information with the general concept of information.
The "generalized concept" of some information, and a physical copy of that information, are two different things. One does not become the other. Just like a red wagon doesn't become the color red, or vice versa.
This makes no sense whatsoever. I never said anything about a "physical copy" of that information. I was never talking about concepts of information, that was a red herring you introduced into the discussion.
I'm sorry if that's too much for you to understand. Maybe you shouldn't get into discussions about abstract things like information if you can't distinguish between ideas and physical objects.
What the fuck are you talking about? This was never about ideas versus physical objects. Where would physical objects even enter into this discussion?
A number is already a "general concept"
No, a specific number is a number, not a concept. The idea of numbers is a concept.
The same way a red wagon is not the color red. The same way three cookies are not the number 3. The same way a yardstick is not a yard. The same way a CD is not a song.
You are clearly fucking insane. A copy of information is exactly the same as the original information. I'm not sure why you think that a copy of information becomes a generalized concept of that information. You even argued this yourself, when you said that one couldn't control what another did with information. But suddenly, information becomes something entirely different when it is copied?
There is no point continuing in this conversation when you are being so idiotic and disingenuous. I don't think you even realize what you are saying. If I were to copy your credit card number, would it cease to be your credit card number, and suddenly become a general concept of "a credit card number"?
Why have you changed the topic of debate from "information is not subject to ownership" to "what is the definition of ownership"? I'm pretty sure it's because case law and human history demonstrates that information is very much subject to ownership, but you don't want to acknowledge that. If information is not subject to ownership, why have there been so many successful court cases that have decided in favor of those who have had information stolen? I guess in your world, it is impossible to steal information (because it wants to be free or something) but in back in the real world, things go differently.
If you were to steal confidential information from a company's servers, you would probably be punished more severely than if you stole the actual servers.
I said no such thing. You seem to believe that "information" is the same thing as a particular physical embodiment (a copy) of that information,
How is a copy of information not information?
Information is not the same as a physical thing that embodies a copy of that information.
But you never said anything about a "physical thing that embodies a copy of that information," you said "Yes, you own that copy."
You can own a red wagon, but you can't own the color red. You can own a yardstick, but you can't own the length of a yard. You can own a book, but you can't own the story.
But now you're talking about owning concepts, not information. A very different thing.
They can guess it. There are only 1440 minutes in a day, and only so many places a person can masturbate. If a few thousand people decided to speculate about your personal habits, it's likely that one of them would get it right (although he wouldn't know it, unless you told him).
Now you're getting stupidly ridiculous. One can't own exclusive information, because someone else might guess it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Instead of personal habits, what about financial data about a company? Some Wall Street pundit might guess the rough figures, but that's not as valuable as the actual data. Does a company not own its own confidential financial data?
Now, if you truly "owned" that fact, then you would be able to stop the guy who guessed correctly from sharing it with anyone else...
How would anybody know who guessed correctly, without access to the actual data?
Then please, let's see some citations of other people talking about "owning" information who aren't claiming control of all copies.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim, it's your duty to support it.
I suspect that for every example you cite, I can find multiple examples to support the standard definition I've been using.
"Standard definition"? What the fuck? You've been using completely made up bullshit. You completely ignore IP law and the way that people generally define ownership.
That's not just publishers. Most execs are too stupid to realize that powerpoint presentations do not equal success.
I don't know about "most." I think that most executives and managers are smart enough to see through that, but publishing is a field in which the upper-management is particularly stupid. Of course, there may be fields in which management is equally stupid, but that doesn't mean it's true across the board.
Can we at least agree that the meaning of "owner" you're using here is different from the meaning that a copyright holder uses when he claims to "own" a song, movie, program, etc.?
No. The usage of "owner" is the same, but the object being owned differs. The copyright holder is claiming ownership of the creative rights associated with the work. The owner of a CD containing that work, is the owner of a copy of the recording of that work.
You yourself said in an earlier post that one could own information:
"Yes, you own that copy. You don't own the software itself. Downloading Ubuntu does not make you the owner of Ubuntu."
So, doesn't that make information subject to ownership? It also undermines the claims of many in the FOSS movement, who like to deride proprietary software on the grounds that you don't own it, you just license it, whereas with FOSS it's "yours" to do whatever you like with.
Suppose I'm the first person to measure the speed of light, and I don't tell anyone that number. I'm the only one who has it, right? But anyone else can still do their own experiments and arrive at the same number.
But what about information that isn't about externally verifiable constants? For example, I masturbate into the toilet at 11:34am. Nobody else witnesses this event. How can anybody else discover this later, unless I tell them? Commercial and trade secrets work in a similar way.
A person who claims to own some information is claiming control over all copies of that information, including copies that are made in the future.
I don't think so. You are using an extreme definition of ownership, where common usage of ownership is much more varied.
How does that change your argument? Finding similar articles to the botox one does not mean that there aren't other, different articles.
Furthermore, when I go to the Salon homepage, the headline story is "Coburn, Vitter anti-public option plan backfires." In what way is that similar to the botox story? Anyway, I can't even see the supposed botox story, or anything like it on the Salon homepage. It's mostly political stories.
I'm not sure what you are seeing, but perhaps you are seeing some version based on your Google search preferences or something?
but he is well known for being friendly and down to earth in person, unlike many of his peers
Yes, that's the way he portrays himself - I wonder how much that is an act, though? Perhaps he is a down-to-earth guy, but when it comes to people like Leno I always wonder if there is anything sincere about them at all, because they have become so subsumed by their stage personality.
I find it hard to believe that anyone so wealthy and famous could be "down to earth" in the way that "regular folk" are. When you don't have to worry about money, and can buy and sell people, can "down to earth" be anything more than a charade?
Oh, and in case it wasn't clear - I agree with the overrated network whore with pedestrian humor part.
Well, at least there's something we can all agree on - I wonder if this could become the basis of the most successful international pact ever signed?
Well, that's not a very convincing argument, because at the time of the paywall, Salon's content was very appealing and in demand. I wouldn't know if that is still the case, as I stopped reading after the paywall was instituted.
But why do you need to say that publicly? Slashdot isn't twitter. Are you also going to post here to say that you don't like apple juice, you prefer orange?
Mea culpa... I guess I am getting old. It's weird though, I don't feel much different than a 20 year-old, but it is getting more difficult to see history from the perspective of someone who was born in 1989!
Any product not designed "By Customers, For Customers" is doomed to failure.
Any product designed by the customers is doomed to failure. Do you really think that the customers have any idea about how to design/engineer a product?
The thing about paperbacks is that they often print too many. Therefore, storing the unsold copies becomes a burden, so the seller wants to get rid of the stock to use that storage space for something else. The whole thing is an exercise in waste. Funny how people are always attacking oil and car companies over environmental concern, but the publishing industry somehow escapes a lot of criticism, because books are 'quaint' or aesthetically appealing or something.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why you think I think that. I certainly never said any such thing.
You clearly did. You equated an exact copy of information with the general concept of information.
The "generalized concept" of some information, and a physical copy of that information, are two different things. One does not become the other. Just like a red wagon doesn't become the color red, or vice versa.
This makes no sense whatsoever. I never said anything about a "physical copy" of that information. I was never talking about concepts of information, that was a red herring you introduced into the discussion.
I'm sorry if that's too much for you to understand. Maybe you shouldn't get into discussions about abstract things like information if you can't distinguish between ideas and physical objects.
What the fuck are you talking about? This was never about ideas versus physical objects. Where would physical objects even enter into this discussion?
A number is already a "general concept"
No, a specific number is a number, not a concept. The idea of numbers is a concept.
H4RDW4RE?
Are we really supposed to take a company seriously, when its own name substitutes numerals for letters?
The same way a red wagon is not the color red. The same way three cookies are not the number 3. The same way a yardstick is not a yard. The same way a CD is not a song.
You are clearly fucking insane. A copy of information is exactly the same as the original information. I'm not sure why you think that a copy of information becomes a generalized concept of that information. You even argued this yourself, when you said that one couldn't control what another did with information. But suddenly, information becomes something entirely different when it is copied?
There is no point continuing in this conversation when you are being so idiotic and disingenuous. I don't think you even realize what you are saying. If I were to copy your credit card number, would it cease to be your credit card number, and suddenly become a general concept of "a credit card number"?
Sounds like a character played by Rodney Dangerfield in a teen grope movie.
P.S:
Why have you changed the topic of debate from "information is not subject to ownership" to "what is the definition of ownership"? I'm pretty sure it's because case law and human history demonstrates that information is very much subject to ownership, but you don't want to acknowledge that. If information is not subject to ownership, why have there been so many successful court cases that have decided in favor of those who have had information stolen? I guess in your world, it is impossible to steal information (because it wants to be free or something) but in back in the real world, things go differently.
If you were to steal confidential information from a company's servers, you would probably be punished more severely than if you stole the actual servers.
I said no such thing. You seem to believe that "information" is the same thing as a particular physical embodiment (a copy) of that information,
How is a copy of information not information?
Information is not the same as a physical thing that embodies a copy of that information.
But you never said anything about a "physical thing that embodies a copy of that information," you said "Yes, you own that copy."
You can own a red wagon, but you can't own the color red. You can own a yardstick, but you can't own the length of a yard. You can own a book, but you can't own the story.
But now you're talking about owning concepts, not information. A very different thing.
They can guess it. There are only 1440 minutes in a day, and only so many places a person can masturbate. If a few thousand people decided to speculate about your personal habits, it's likely that one of them would get it right (although he wouldn't know it, unless you told him).
Now you're getting stupidly ridiculous. One can't own exclusive information, because someone else might guess it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Instead of personal habits, what about financial data about a company? Some Wall Street pundit might guess the rough figures, but that's not as valuable as the actual data. Does a company not own its own confidential financial data?
Now, if you truly "owned" that fact, then you would be able to stop the guy who guessed correctly from sharing it with anyone else...
How would anybody know who guessed correctly, without access to the actual data?
Then please, let's see some citations of other people talking about "owning" information who aren't claiming control of all copies.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim, it's your duty to support it.
I suspect that for every example you cite, I can find multiple examples to support the standard definition I've been using.
"Standard definition"? What the fuck? You've been using completely made up bullshit. You completely ignore IP law and the way that people generally define ownership.
That's not just publishers. Most execs are too stupid to realize that powerpoint presentations do not equal success.
I don't know about "most." I think that most executives and managers are smart enough to see through that, but publishing is a field in which the upper-management is particularly stupid. Of course, there may be fields in which management is equally stupid, but that doesn't mean it's true across the board.
Can we at least agree that the meaning of "owner" you're using here is different from the meaning that a copyright holder uses when he claims to "own" a song, movie, program, etc.?
No. The usage of "owner" is the same, but the object being owned differs. The copyright holder is claiming ownership of the creative rights associated with the work. The owner of a CD containing that work, is the owner of a copy of the recording of that work.
You yourself said in an earlier post that one could own information:
"Yes, you own that copy. You don't own the software itself. Downloading Ubuntu does not make you the owner of Ubuntu."
So, doesn't that make information subject to ownership? It also undermines the claims of many in the FOSS movement, who like to deride proprietary software on the grounds that you don't own it, you just license it, whereas with FOSS it's "yours" to do whatever you like with.
Suppose I'm the first person to measure the speed of light, and I don't tell anyone that number. I'm the only one who has it, right? But anyone else can still do their own experiments and arrive at the same number.
But what about information that isn't about externally verifiable constants? For example, I masturbate into the toilet at 11:34am. Nobody else witnesses this event. How can anybody else discover this later, unless I tell them? Commercial and trade secrets work in a similar way.
A person who claims to own some information is claiming control over all copies of that information, including copies that are made in the future.
I don't think so. You are using an extreme definition of ownership, where common usage of ownership is much more varied.
How does that change your argument? Finding similar articles to the botox one does not mean that there aren't other, different articles.
Furthermore, when I go to the Salon homepage, the headline story is "Coburn, Vitter anti-public option plan backfires." In what way is that similar to the botox story? Anyway, I can't even see the supposed botox story, or anything like it on the Salon homepage. It's mostly political stories.
I'm not sure what you are seeing, but perhaps you are seeing some version based on your Google search preferences or something?
but he is well known for being friendly and down to earth in person, unlike many of his peers
Yes, that's the way he portrays himself - I wonder how much that is an act, though? Perhaps he is a down-to-earth guy, but when it comes to people like Leno I always wonder if there is anything sincere about them at all, because they have become so subsumed by their stage personality.
I find it hard to believe that anyone so wealthy and famous could be "down to earth" in the way that "regular folk" are. When you don't have to worry about money, and can buy and sell people, can "down to earth" be anything more than a charade?
Oh, and in case it wasn't clear - I agree with the overrated network whore with pedestrian humor part.
Well, at least there's something we can all agree on - I wonder if this could become the basis of the most successful international pact ever signed?
90% of slashdot commentators prefer global warming over Obama? I think your numbers might be a little off.
Would you mind doing the rest of humanity a favor, and remove yourself from the gene pool? Thanks.
What the fuck kind of crooked cop would put somebody in a cell for this?
Well, actually it doesn't help me understand their perspective any better, but it sure is fun!!
Well, duh.
Nowhere did I indicate that the presense of that single article was the reason I had no interest in the website.
Actually, that is exactly what you indicated in your post.
Rather it was the complete absense of any link on their homepage that I felt compelled to click on.
But you never said that in your post. If that is what you meant, why didn't you say that in the first place?
Well, that's not a very convincing argument, because at the time of the paywall, Salon's content was very appealing and in demand. I wouldn't know if that is still the case, as I stopped reading after the paywall was instituted.
live-in girlfriend
You live in your girlfriend? Couldn't you afford an apartment with your full-tim salary?
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
OK, Mr. Genius. Put down the floppy diskette and slowly step away from the "time machine."
I see his publicists are out in force today.
Goodbye Bravo.com, USA.com, or Syfy.com episodes over the net.
Sounds like a good deal to me. Bring it on.
But why do you need to say that publicly? Slashdot isn't twitter. Are you also going to post here to say that you don't like apple juice, you prefer orange?
Mea culpa... I guess I am getting old. It's weird though, I don't feel much different than a 20 year-old, but it is getting more difficult to see history from the perspective of someone who was born in 1989!
Any product not designed "By Customers, For Customers" is doomed to failure.
Any product designed by the customers is doomed to failure. Do you really think that the customers have any idea about how to design/engineer a product?
Calling Microsoft employees or users Microserfs
Has this actually happened on slashdot since 1999?
The thing about paperbacks is that they often print too many. Therefore, storing the unsold copies becomes a burden, so the seller wants to get rid of the stock to use that storage space for something else. The whole thing is an exercise in waste. Funny how people are always attacking oil and car companies over environmental concern, but the publishing industry somehow escapes a lot of criticism, because books are 'quaint' or aesthetically appealing or something.