"I find that fossil fuel matter made breathing possible to be fascinating and it is not only not taught in schools, it is virtually unaddressed including all who replied to me in this thread."
Maybe it is because it's a f* obviety....were it not because it is not "fossil fuel" but "fossil (mainly) carbonated structures". You wouldn't consider the White Cliffs of Dover, to name a famous example, to be "fossil fuel matter", would you?
"My understanding... is that atmospheric oxygen at levels high enough to sustain oxygen based metabolism came from plants and trees"
Your understanding is quite wrong.
By the time there were "plants and trees" the major part of the biosphere already was oxigen dependant.
The change of the atmosphere from reductive to oxidative predates trees by about two billion years -the start of the proterozoic age is marked about 2.4 billion years ago (with a strong spike around the precambric which still predates trees by about 300 million years).
"I cannot imagine that many of our judges are educated enough in the modern issues of copyright in the virtual world to recognize the problem"
That's good for you: with regards of copyright notions, the more "luddites" the more probable the judge will reach a fair outcome.
There's absolutly *nothing* in the "virtual world" that means a damn with respect of copy rights except to muddy the waters.
"I have to say that in my opinion the judge is wrong"
With regards of court rules, the damn short letter makes a big difference. Given that the basic asumption seems fair (news are news, not creative work) I'll tend to think that it was the plaintiff the one that failed to show that among the non-copyrighteable facts there were creative work too. A judge must judge about what was presented to him, not about what he can imagine that "really happened".
"what was the ROI motivation of the moon program in the 60s?"
Are you kidding?
1) For the contractors: obviously, the contracts. 2) For those signing the bills (the politicians): the bribes from the contractors and the warm feeling for the American citizenship "we are the good ones, we are in a crusade and we are going to win it" that would insure the statu quo both for the contractors and the politicians.
Do you imagine the catastrophe if the Americans would even hinted that some thing might be learnt from the hatred communism?
"Except that people (presumably Americans) get *paid* to make (from mining the ore to writing the software) those Tomahawks. That money goes into the economy."
Yes, but it doesn't create wealth, which is what matters.
"Where exactly does military spending go, if not right back into the economy?"
Broken window fallacy.
If it were so simple we could end all the world's economic problems today: just pay half the population for digging holes and the other half to cover them.
Sure. But then, why somebody feel necessary to mention it?
Do you know how can we know ours is not an eye-color hating society? Because nobody mentions the eye color of somebody when stablishing that person's achievements. And we don't do it because nobody gives a damn.
We can't have a truly egalitarian society till the same happens with the skin color too.
"In the case of oil, there are many costs beyond that of simply producing the oil, refining it and transporting it. The most obvious is the cost of maintaining trade relations with many OPEC countries."
"What I am attempting to communicate is that when people created art for free, it was not an occupation that their survival depended on."
And my point is that this is absolutly false. A *lot* of people had their earnings depending on their artistic acumen.
And, in the end, my point again is that I don't give a damn.
Real artists will pursue their vocation even on the face of the most extreme situations, as History already demonstrates (Cervantes, the brightest novelist of whole History, happening to be an excelent example, if you take the time to learn about his biography), so there's no need for society to pay for any stimulus, much less in advance.
"Shakespeare needed a theater company? that's what I am talking about: he could not live solely on his works."
He certainly made a live from his works. The point is that he didn't make a live enterily on his own, which is exactly what almost anybody else does (or do you earn your feed just by your own?) *and* he didn't manage to work for a year and live from that credit for the rest of his life and then 70 years after his death (arguably, did Shakespeare lived today, he would have written "Romeo and Juilet", lived from the benefits for the rest of his life and never thought about writting "Kind Lear"... after all, what for?).
"I quite prefer Jordan to Cervantes and Zeppelin to Monteverdi."
Your choice. But even then, the mere existance of Monteverdi obviously probes that there's no necessity of "modern artist protection" for art to exist.
On the other hand, "modern artist protection" (which is in fact "big entertainmet corporations' protection") can be shown to adversely impact artists. Do you think is per chance that the end of the era of great simphonic composers coincides with the raise of the recording companies?
"When people were creating stuff and there was no copyright, they either had another profession or where sponsored by kings or leaders."
So what? Are you implying that Sony sponsoring has nothing to do with Beyonce's success? Or is it that you think that Bach being a mere church organist badly affected his production?
"In addition, creation at that time was a solo process, mostly."
The dean of Rome's St Peter's basilica would probably dissent. Or you can ask Shakespeare about how badly he needed a theater company backing him to meet ends.
"Nowdays, many hundreds of people work full time on each video games and movie. If they lose that income due to piracy, they would be unemployed."
Of course they would. Under current conditions. So what?
The invention of the refrigerator would unemploy all those ice sellers oh, noes, let's forbid fridges!
"Well, the creative process 500 years ago largely depended on either being wealthy enough not to have to support yourself via your creations or having a wealthy patron to pay the bills"
Tell that to Homer, Cervantes or Shakespeare.
On the other hand, today it's still exactly the same. Where it took a pharaoh to rise a pyramid now it takes a Sony executive to rise a pop star. Of course the motivations are different but my position stays the same: creativity flourished without the modern kind of "artist protection" (which is not even that: even a superficial analysis shows that it is "big entertaiment corporations' protection") so modern-style "artist protection" is not a must but a current condition.
"Also, a lot of works today don't rely on just a few man-years of labor."
Neither did building a pyramid or Roma's Colisseum.
"Drugs come out of a several hundred million dollar development/approval process"
Drug companies work the way they work *because* of current conditions (which is no wonder), conditions they themselves have heavily contributed to make up (again, no wonder once someone considers 'qui prodes') which is far to mean that's the only way it could work (hint: the XIX century Germany was the modern chemical industry father and world leader under quite disadvantageous patent/copyright environment by modern standards but they pursued their interests *even* in the face of that).
"That is true, was true, and will keep being true"
That's so blatantly false that only the utmost ignorant or a damn lier would stand for it.
The written History of Humankind covers no less than 5000 years; intellectual property is a 500 year old concept at most, so for no less than 90% of History the "creative process" has kept going quite good without such "protections".
Slashdot Mirror
"I find that fossil fuel matter made breathing possible to be fascinating and it is not only not taught in schools, it is virtually unaddressed including all who replied to me in this thread."
Maybe it is because it's a f* obviety. ...were it not because it is not "fossil fuel" but "fossil (mainly) carbonated structures". You wouldn't consider the White Cliffs of Dover, to name a famous example, to be "fossil fuel matter", would you?
"It's my understanding that cyanobacteria is responsible for initially creating earths oxygen."
Which are neither plants nor trees.
"My understanding ... is that atmospheric oxygen at levels high enough to sustain oxygen based metabolism came from plants and trees"
Your understanding is quite wrong.
By the time there were "plants and trees" the major part of the biosphere already was oxigen dependant.
The change of the atmosphere from reductive to oxidative predates trees by about two billion years -the start of the proterozoic age is marked about 2.4 billion years ago (with a strong spike around the precambric which still predates trees by about 300 million years).
"I cannot imagine that many of our judges are educated enough in the modern issues of copyright in the virtual world to recognize the problem"
That's good for you: with regards of copyright notions, the more "luddites" the more probable the judge will reach a fair outcome.
There's absolutly *nothing* in the "virtual world" that means a damn with respect of copy rights except to muddy the waters.
"I have to say that in my opinion the judge is wrong"
With regards of court rules, the damn short letter makes a big difference. Given that the basic asumption seems fair (news are news, not creative work) I'll tend to think that it was the plaintiff the one that failed to show that among the non-copyrighteable facts there were creative work too. A judge must judge about what was presented to him, not about what he can imagine that "really happened".
"what was the ROI motivation of the moon program in the 60s?"
Are you kidding?
1) For the contractors: obviously, the contracts.
2) For those signing the bills (the politicians): the bribes from the contractors and the warm feeling for the American citizenship "we are the good ones, we are in a crusade and we are going to win it" that would insure the statu quo both for the contractors and the politicians.
Do you imagine the catastrophe if the Americans would even hinted that some thing might be learnt from the hatred communism?
"You don't earn a single penny bombing out places in Afghanistan.
They don't even have oil."
But they do have rare earths. You didn't really believe they were doing it for free, do you?
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2936
"Precision guided weapons were designed for the sole purpose of not having to bomb villages, houses and water supplies."
May I suggest a third option? What about trying not bomb them -at all?
"Except that people (presumably Americans) get *paid* to make (from mining the ore to writing the software) those Tomahawks. That money goes into the economy."
Yes, but it doesn't create wealth, which is what matters.
Again, the broken window falacy in action.
"Where exactly does military spending go, if not right back into the economy?"
Broken window fallacy.
If it were so simple we could end all the world's economic problems today: just pay half the population for digging holes and the other half to cover them.
"Race wasn't a factor."
Sure. But then, why somebody feel necessary to mention it?
Do you know how can we know ours is not an eye-color hating society? Because nobody mentions the eye color of somebody when stablishing that person's achievements. And we don't do it because nobody gives a damn.
We can't have a truly egalitarian society till the same happens with the skin color too.
"I just don't think your example provides any support for your claim"
Think twice. You already accepted patents are a problem for those not at the top, do you?
But that's as valid for any company as it's for countries: they are only good if you are already a big fish.
Now, do you really thing the way to promote innovation is by means of tools that favor the old statu quo farts the most?
"In the case of oil, there are many costs beyond that of simply producing the oil, refining it and transporting it. The most obvious is the cost of maintaining trade relations with many OPEC countries."
This includes the various wars at Middle East?
"Each state is different"
Yes, specially UK.
Can OpenVPN be installed without rooting the phone and therefore voiding the device's warrant and your provider's support?
"What I am attempting to communicate is that when people created art for free, it was not an occupation that their survival depended on."
And my point is that this is absolutly false. A *lot* of people had their earnings depending on their artistic acumen.
And, in the end, my point again is that I don't give a damn.
Real artists will pursue their vocation even on the face of the most extreme situations, as History already demonstrates (Cervantes, the brightest novelist of whole History, happening to be an excelent example, if you take the time to learn about his biography), so there's no need for society to pay for any stimulus, much less in advance.
"Shakespeare needed a theater company? that's what I am talking about: he could not live solely on his works."
He certainly made a live from his works. The point is that he didn't make a live enterily on his own, which is exactly what almost anybody else does (or do you earn your feed just by your own?) *and* he didn't manage to work for a year and live from that credit for the rest of his life and then 70 years after his death (arguably, did Shakespeare lived today, he would have written "Romeo and Juilet", lived from the benefits for the rest of his life and never thought about writting "Kind Lear"... after all, what for?).
"I quite prefer Jordan to Cervantes and Zeppelin to Monteverdi."
Your choice. But even then, the mere existance of Monteverdi obviously probes that there's no necessity of "modern artist protection" for art to exist.
On the other hand, "modern artist protection" (which is in fact "big entertainmet corporations' protection") can be shown to adversely impact artists. Do you think is per chance that the end of the era of great simphonic composers coincides with the raise of the recording companies?
"When people were creating stuff and there was no copyright, they either had another profession or where sponsored by kings or leaders."
So what? Are you implying that Sony sponsoring has nothing to do with Beyonce's success? Or is it that you think that Bach being a mere church organist badly affected his production?
"In addition, creation at that time was a solo process, mostly."
The dean of Rome's St Peter's basilica would probably dissent. Or you can ask Shakespeare about how badly he needed a theater company backing him to meet ends.
"Nowdays, many hundreds of people work full time on each video games and movie. If they lose that income due to piracy, they would be unemployed."
Of course they would. Under current conditions. So what?
The invention of the refrigerator would unemploy all those ice sellers oh, noes, let's forbid fridges!
"The earth is 4.6 billion years old, not 5000."
Good luck finding a Trylobites memories from those days (and those would just be about 650 m.y.o, not 4.6 aeons).
"Well, the creative process 500 years ago largely depended on either being wealthy enough not to have to support yourself via your creations or having a wealthy patron to pay the bills"
Tell that to Homer, Cervantes or Shakespeare.
On the other hand, today it's still exactly the same. Where it took a pharaoh to rise a pyramid now it takes a Sony executive to rise a pop star. Of course the motivations are different but my position stays the same: creativity flourished without the modern kind of "artist protection" (which is not even that: even a superficial analysis shows that it is "big entertaiment corporations' protection") so modern-style "artist protection" is not a must but a current condition.
"Also, a lot of works today don't rely on just a few man-years of labor."
Neither did building a pyramid or Roma's Colisseum.
"Drugs come out of a several hundred million dollar development/approval process"
Drug companies work the way they work *because* of current conditions (which is no wonder), conditions they themselves have heavily contributed to make up (again, no wonder once someone considers 'qui prodes') which is far to mean that's the only way it could work (hint: the XIX century Germany was the modern chemical industry father and world leader under quite disadvantageous patent/copyright environment by modern standards but they pursued their interests *even* in the face of that).
"Where are you buying from? They may not be Cisco, but you can get decent mid-level managed switches with STP for under $500."
It doesn't move my argument: wherever you find those managed switches for $500 you can find unmanaged ones for $50.
A aaaaaargh!
Will they be able to transport a coconut then?
Yes, it certainly can be argued that way but I happen to prefer, say, Cervantes to Clancy or Monteverdi to Beyonce any day of the week.
"That is true, was true, and will keep being true"
That's so blatantly false that only the utmost ignorant or a damn lier would stand for it.
The written History of Humankind covers no less than 5000 years; intellectual property is a 500 year old concept at most, so for no less than 90% of History the "creative process" has kept going quite good without such "protections".
"There's a reason there is no Nobel Prize for Information Technology"
There's no Nobel Prize for Mathematics either so your point is, again?