Fast Search And Transfer would be FSAT or FST, not FAST. Microsoft is allowed to have self-recursive acronyms if they are bugged.;) Is there a difference between "recursive" and "self-recursive"? Or is "self-recursive" self-redundant?
Everything should go into the public domain after a period long enough to have allowed the creator to profit under most circumstances.
Copyright should also last at least long enough that it discourages companies from just waiting it out.
I figure 10-15 years for most things. Although I'm all for shortening patent and copyright protections, I still get annoyed when people suggest a specific number of years "because it seems reasonable". It just seems so arbitrary and so... inelegant. Here's a much more beautiful solution: 0
Think about this (by the way, I'm from the UK, so things are a bit different, but I suppose the pattern's the samee)... Go back a generation further and my grandparents had that modern British middle-class dream and mainstay of daytime TV, a little holiday cottage in the countryside.
The pattern is the same but the timing is different. Your grandparants were still enjoying the privileges of empire... and control of the world's reserve currency. Go East young man.
Thanks for the well-reasoned and nuanced response. However... I would like to submit a rebuttal. Here goes:
The axiom you should start with is: "Competition is good."
Following your lead, I suggest that we consider "Competition is good" not as an axiom but as a theorem deriving from a lower-level set of axioms one of which is "Lower prices/better quality is better than higher prices/lower quality".
A monopoly in certain markets allow the monopolist to engage in anticompetitive behavior, such as dumping and bundling.
Since we are not using existence of competition as a criterion anymore (only price and quality), it would seem that "dumping" (lower prices, same quality, and "bundling" (more for the same price), are good things and should not be discouraged.
2. If creative works are allowed to be copied and distributed at will, there will be no monetary market (there is still one for reputation, which is one that existed before copyright laws and which is what still matters more for academia). Without monetary market, there will be less competition (if one can call it that---more like participation), since only a smaller set of people, essentially those who do not need money, will participate in creative production.
Again, having done away with "competition" as a criterion, the situation you describe seems ideal, since you can't get any cheaper than free, and (this is admittedly debatable) the quality of creative works produced avocationally or through direct patronage would be higher.
copyright, and patents too. last 5 years. no extensions. no exceptions. you get a 5 year monopoly on your creation or idea. Please reconcile the following widely-held beliefs.
1. We need anti-trust laws because monopolies are bad.
2. We need patents and copyrights (however limited) because monopolies encourage innovation, hence good.
1)weigh object
2)place object in full container of water
3)mesure displaced water
4)work out if the mass of the ring is higher or lower than the volume of titanium the ring should contain
5)...
6) PROFIT!
you forgot
5)Run naked in the streets...
so
6)...
7)PROFIT!
Thanks for the interesting info about non-patentables. I wonder if this class of products can serve as a control in a study to test the hypothesis that patents (and IP laws in general) actually encourage innovation.
And in biology they just call it "ring species" and are done with it. Thanks for the info. But to my mind, this just accentuates the fact that the concept of "species" is broken and is no longer useful for scientific advancement.
You can also get odd situations where varieties A and C can't interbreed with each other, but either can with B. IIRC there is some kind of duck or goose that has this property. There are at least two metaphysical issues in these kinds of statements:
1. "Varieties" do not interbreed, individuals do. Interbreeding is a property of members of different sets, not of the sets themselves.
2. The use of the word "can" implies that potential (as opposed to actualities) can be considered a property (of the set or of the member of the set?). Certain members of a given set will necessarily be "unable" (not do so ever) to interbreed or even breed within its own set (cf. set of Slashdot subscribers).
Although the giraffes look different, if you put them in zoos, they breed freely.
Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species? There is no rigorous definition of "species". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
Don't give up your source and shut down, or give up your source and don't shut down. You won't be getting any more "insider tips" either way. Oh well, there's always Dave Schroeder.
I really hope Nick got some money in exchange for agreeing to terminate his site. In any case, thank you for your years of work on behalf of the Mac community, Nick. Or he could just start another rumor site called "Vroom with a Pre-View".
c.f.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_Inc._slogans
Why not create a "modified division" for those who take performance enhancing substances? What is the point of cheating if everyone is doing it? That IS the point, taking performance-enhancing substances would no longer be considered cheating.
No, because he opposes reproductive rights. He personally believes that human life begins at conception, which is a perfectly tenable position.
^preposterous analogy^ Or do you think that software that is still in alpha should not be protected by software patents, oh wait...^/preposterous analogy^
The problem is that it isn't very ethical to fool people into ruining their health in hope of huge money prices should they win. The doping rules are there to protect the athletes from their own greed. How is that any different from the situation in pro sports and Olympic-level athletics/gymnastics TODAY. The training regimens (yes, even completely "legal" ones) of top-level athletes are already ruining their health: stunted growth in gymnasts, knee problems in basketball players, excessive muscle mass in football players, etc... Nobody is fooling anyone. These are adults making personal choices.
Sigh. Anti-Trust (monopolies are bad) and Intellectual Property (monopolies are good) are anti-particles of each other. I can't wait for the two to just collide already causing both of them to vanish while unleasing an incredible amount of creative energy.
Quote from Albert Einstein: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Quote from Heraclitus: "You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you." Hence my sig.
Slashdot Mirror
Say hi to Kumar for me.
Everything should go into the public domain after a period long enough to have allowed the creator to profit under most circumstances.
Copyright should also last at least long enough that it discourages companies from just waiting it out.
I figure 10-15 years for most things. Although I'm all for shortening patent and copyright protections, I still get annoyed when people suggest a specific number of years "because it seems reasonable". It just seems so arbitrary and so... inelegant. Here's a much more beautiful solution: 0
I realized that far too many people let emotion get in the way of logic.
Turn in your geek card, everybody knows "emotional" Capt. Kirk always ended up being right over "logical" Dr. Spock.Think about this (by the way, I'm from the UK, so things are a bit different, but I suppose the pattern's the samee)... Go back a generation further and my grandparents had that modern British middle-class dream and mainstay of daytime TV, a little holiday cottage in the countryside.
The pattern is the same but the timing is different. Your grandparants were still enjoying the privileges of empire... and control of the world's reserve currency. Go East young man.
Thanks for the well-reasoned and nuanced response. However... I would like to submit a rebuttal. Here goes:
The axiom you should start with is: "Competition is good."
Following your lead, I suggest that we consider "Competition is good" not as an axiom but as a theorem deriving from a lower-level set of axioms one of which is "Lower prices/better quality is better than higher prices/lower quality".
A monopoly in certain markets allow the monopolist to engage in anticompetitive behavior, such as dumping and bundling.
Since we are not using existence of competition as a criterion anymore (only price and quality), it would seem that "dumping" (lower prices, same quality, and "bundling" (more for the same price), are good things and should not be discouraged.
2. If creative works are allowed to be copied and distributed at will, there will be no monetary market (there is still one for reputation, which is one that existed before copyright laws and which is what still matters more for academia). Without monetary market, there will be less competition (if one can call it that---more like participation), since only a smaller set of people, essentially those who do not need money, will participate in creative production.
Again, having done away with "competition" as a criterion, the situation you describe seems ideal, since you can't get any cheaper than free, and (this is admittedly debatable) the quality of creative works produced avocationally or through direct patronage would be higher.
Meh...semantics.
I doubt it will remain so after the first screening and the seats are subjected to two hours of naturist bum application.
Please reconcile the following widely-held beliefs.
1. We need anti-trust laws because monopolies are bad.
2. We need patents and copyrights (however limited) because monopolies encourage innovation, hence good.
1)weigh object
you forgot 5)Run naked in the streets...2)place object in full container of water
3)mesure displaced water
4)work out if the mass of the ring is higher or lower than the volume of titanium the ring should contain
5)...
6) PROFIT!
so
6)...
7)PROFIT!
Thanks for the interesting info about non-patentables. I wonder if this class of products can serve as a control in a study to test the hypothesis that patents (and IP laws in general) actually encourage innovation.
1. "Varieties" do not interbreed, individuals do. Interbreeding is a property of members of different sets, not of the sets themselves.
2. The use of the word "can" implies that potential (as opposed to actualities) can be considered a property (of the set or of the member of the set?). Certain members of a given set will necessarily be "unable" (not do so ever) to interbreed or even breed within its own set (cf. set of Slashdot subscribers).
Assuming they produce viable offspring, isn't that one of the primary definitions for a single species? There is no rigorous definition of "species". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_Inc._slogans
Sigh. Anti-Trust (monopolies are bad) and Intellectual Property (monopolies are good) are anti-particles of each other. I can't wait for the two to just collide already causing both of them to vanish while unleasing an incredible amount of creative energy.