The basis of the American Revolution was "no taxation without representation". The basis of the whatever-you-call-it the Muslims are doing is "Jews are dogs and America is the Great Satan".
Poppycock. The American Revolution had it's own propaganda, and since "we" won, that propaganda was written as history. There were a lot of reasons for the American Revolution, but taxation without representation ranks far down the list -- it was more about power -- the new American elite had no political power, no access to the throne and resented it. The British colonies in the Americas faced a tax burden far lower than their erstwhile compatriots in Britain.
Just as the radical Muslims demonize the West, particularly Americans, and Jews, American rebels demonized sympathizers with the crown. There were acts of terror (keep in mind that without terrorism in New Jersey and the Carolinas, the rebels would likely have lost the war, due to Tory support), there was propaganda (some of which was truth, some of which was not).
As others have noted, history is written by the winners. If you read a lot about the American Revolution (what you learned in grade school/high school is mostly crap), you'll come to view it slightly differently... and realize that it has a lot in common with the radical Muslim position. They are angry of American cultural and economic hegemony... the American Revolution was very similar, though it added political hegemony to the mix. Since today, with Capitalism having conquered Democracy, economic hegemony == political hegemony, it's no surprise that the American Empire is resented.
All that said, I am not an apoligist for Muslim extremism -- but understanding it makes it easier to battle.
One ballistic impulse of 7 km / sec or so to get up above the atmosphere and on your way is...
a great way to make your jaw come out your ass?
Fine for sturdy cargo, but your common slob (such as myself) could NOT withstand that kind of acceleration. You'd have to make people pass physical fitness tests for insurance purposes... plus you'd have to distribute protective codpieces so that your male passengers wouldn't be scraping their balls off their shoes.
Why do you limit yourself to one valid basis for the social contract of property rights?
The problem with your logic is that it presumes that for intellectual property to exist, it MUST mirror real property; and that because the foundation of the concept does not mirror, it invalidates the concept of IP.
There is no logical reason (though there are philosophical ones) why we can't have an IP social contract in addition to a RP social contract; furthermore, we can say that due to the fundamental differences between RP & IP, the social contracts should be different (and guess what, they are!). The concepts can be parallel without being equal, and this removes the constaint of needing equivalent bases.
Also, property is not defined by the fact that only one person can utilize it at the same time. Otherwise there would be no concept of ownership in absentia. If you own land in Montana, but reside in New York... do I have every right to use your land in Montana, since I am not depriving you of the use of that land?
In other words, real property is based on, and compatible with, physical reality
And this in no way contradicts gp's point that it's a social contract.
Regardless of what it is based upon, it is a social contract... and like it or not, there is a social contract (though disputed by yourself and others) regarding intellectual property.
As the gp said, you may disagree with the contract... but as part of society, you are bound by it unless you can overturn it.
To sum up, you're both right -- IP and RP are fundamentally different (for the reasons you state) but they both exist (for the reasons he states).
I think maybe you missed his point entirely in your eagerness to devow intellectual property, because you never addressed his point, which was to define what the concept of property rights is (a social contract), and then extend that to IP as is currently in effect.
Unfortunately, modding the puppets doesn't work when the puppets are used to mod posts, and I'm not convinced that metamoderation is agile enough (especially considering the tendency of user-generated feedback to be overwhelmingly positive) to combat sockpuppets when they are used to mod posts.
The best way to combat sockpuppets is to raise awareness of their existence and the parent-child relationship. Sure, sometimes that info is OT when post IS actually informative, or insightful, or whatever... in which case the posts should rightly be modded offtopic. However, I think it's healthy for the slashdot community for these posts to come through and be seen once a month or so.
Frankly I'm sick of all the people trying to discredit the useful information he posts because they are hellbent on some crusade to "prove" something they cannot actually prove
Useful: I do not think it means what you think it means. Though, I will admit, that his posts have recently (over the past6 mos or so) increased in quality, and some do have valid points. That said, I think it reprehensible that he uses sockpuppets.
Anyway, I think your post makes a lot of sense, and can be summed up in a few short words: Don't feed the trolls.
When I need to go to the bathroom, I don't want to be interrupted to have a conversation, nor do I want to hear other people yapping away while they do their business. But I guess that's just me....
Heh. My office has a single pair of bathrooms... but granted, it's only for ~120 employees at the moment. But given the culture of my office, I also am forced to listen to people conducting their business via cell phone while 'conducting their business'.
It always makes me laugh when I hear, "One minute please"...*FLUSH*..."OK, tell me".
This is on conference calls with upper management overseas, I might add.
If the government uses generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) like almost any other organization in the US, ten year old laptops should be listed as worth next to nothing. The depreciation schedule is about 3 years, I think.
Well, first off, the US government doesn't comply with GAAP across the board, it picks and chooses where it wants to comply. There's plenty of questionable accounting practices, despite efforts to clean it up (see GAO annual report).
And as for ten-year-old laptops, while it's true that their net book value should be zero (cost less accumulated depreciation), those are recorded separately on the books. So until you retire an asset, the full cost is on your books -- even if its offset by accumulated depreciation.
If the assets are no longer in service, they need to be retired -- this reverses both your original asset entry and the total of your accumulated depreciation for the assets.
Who sues to get a lock on "Golden" and who ensures that no one else anywhere can use "Dragon"?
No one. Trademarks are also tied to their markets; there is no trademark infringement when markets do not collide.
Hence, Golden Dragon in Decatur IL has no standing to sue Golden Dragon in Kissimee FL for trademark infringement.
Once case recently illustrating this was Trump's trademark of "You're Fired" in classes 9 and 16 (I believe; not sure if there were other classes also) nationwide; there was a pottery shop of the same name in Chicago that sold goods in classes 9 and 16 prior to Trump's trademark application. They ended up settling for an undisclosed amount, but basically the pottery shop owner already had the trademark (though unregistered) in Chicago, so Trump was out of luck.
To get back to the Golden Dragon example, someone trying to register "Golden Dragon" nationwide (say, if they were starting a chain) would need to negotiate with restaurants of that name in order to supplant their existing trademark.
Maybe it's just me, but I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling with the new electrics under development (or in production).
Having grown up around adults who worshipped at the altar of limited-run classic cars (59 1/2 Shelby Cobra, anyone?) I feel like we're witnessing (or in some cases, participating in -- lucky bastards) the dawn of a new era of classic cars.
I know I'm rambling, and slightly OT, but I can easily imagine the Tesla Raodster being the star of some classic car show I'll take my grandkids to.
Anyway, my point is that I feel that we're finally witnessing the green car revolution, and I'm glad to be here for it.
Wow.. you sound like a such a bleeding heart liberal.. oh wait.. this is slashdot.
Wow... you sound like such a wackjob conservative... oh wait... this is slashdot.
There is a moral issue with intentionally gaming a system to minimize the cost for yourself when you partake of common services provided by the system.
Whether or not it offends your morals depends on your personal moral code... not to get a relativistic with morality. But I believe you do the public a disservice when you make use of government services without contributing to them.
But you know, whatever floats your boat... if you think that the best thing for society is for freeloaders to make out as best as possible, while those without the means to avoid taxes bear the brunt of them, you go ahead and keep feeling that way. It's not like anything I can say will change your mind.
And as for when the US became a second-rate nation, I'll refer you to the article from earlier today about ranking 15th for broadband access... or to numerous articles you could read about the US sliding in standard of living... or the US ranking awfully in human rights... or the US ranking poorly in health... or the US ranking poorly in health insurance... or to numerous articles about the US sliding in personal freedom.
When did the US become a second-rate nation? Probably when we allowed the conglomerate corporations control of the media and government. But hey, that's just my opinion, since I shudder to think that the quality of a nation can be summed up in GDP figures.
Double-take... did anyone else read "Xerox Hemos Self-effacing, CowboyNeal Pager"?
Or did I just come to the realization that too many 20-hour days is bad for reading comprehension and eyesight, and taking a break on slashdot is possibly not the best course of action?
You sound like my overly suspicious ex with her UV light and the bed-sheets.
s/ex/puritancial mother when you were "becoming a man".
There, FTF those of us who do not understand the meaning of "ex" unless it precedes -othermic, -ternal, or -tra fries please.
JK. She's now your ex... I'm guessing she found something... sounds like you should say that she was just-the-right-amount-of suspicious, not overly suspicious.
This is just like RedHat's model, what's so surprising? Also, Shuttleworth chucked a ton of change at them initially if my memory serves correctly.
Note that Shuttleworth didn't "chuck money at them", he founded the company. So unless he decided to chuck money at himself (something I'm fond of doing, though perhaps taking some libertarian slashdotter's advice and keeping all my money in gold bullion wasn't perhaps the best idea), I'm not sure where you're coming from. Shuttleworth did chuck a bunch of money at Ubuntu... so founding a for-profit startup to provide S&S for Ubuntu seems like a good move. Or maybe I have it backwards, perhaps chucking money at the OS you've founded a S&S company for is the good move.
No single link to source - where did they get this info, just unfounded speculations.
You know, back in the day, people actually used to write news, instead of merely recirculating and commenting on other blogs/articles/what-have-you.
Sure, we don't know whether the author of TFA is reputable, and if he is using source material and not crediting it, that's a problem -- but I, for one, think that original writing is far too rare on teh internets... and I welcome original writing even though we have no good way to verify.
Or would you rather have TFA be a blog entry that links to another blog entry that links to a press release or AP article? Then everyone can complain that no one is linking the original source...
Well, there's some more to this fuzzy math... (ok, maths since we are referring to the UK)
The statement doesn't include any kind of time period for the 1 in 4 stat. Also, they do not define "been affected by".
So, 1 in 4 may have been affected by ID theft in their lifetime. Is this a surprise? Think about how many ways people can be affected by identity theft... one of which being bearing the cost of ID theft when purchasing goods, another one is needing to jump through hoops in order to complete a simple bank transaction. I'd say close to 100% of Britons have been affected... the only reason it's not 100% is because of newborns and the (possibly mythical) hermits with zero contact with the rest of the UK.
Not to be facetious... they could easily consider having a family member a victim of ID theft means being affected by ID theft.
If they can only identify 0.1% of the fraud what are they actually doing? I know the gubment wastes money, but that is crazy.
You'll notice that they didn't say 1 in 4 Britons was a victim of ID theft in the past year...
Sheesh, what is slashdot coming to when even BadAnalogyGuy gets too complacent to come up with a car analogy in order to clarify something that is apparently confusing?
And note,
If you ever wonder why lawyers get paid so much, it's the same reason porn stars do. It's not a difficult job, but you wouldn't want to tell your family that you spend all day producing gibberish.
Last time I checked, porn stars aren't paid for producing gibberish./deliberately obtuse
Yes, FDR did a good job convincing people of this. That doesn't make it true.
So what did cause it, then? You believe that government intervention in economics caused the GD. Please explain, as that runs counter to what most economists believe.
I mean, explicitly allowing subprime loans, not merely "deregulating" or "reducing oversight."
Explicitly allowing subprime loans is a reduction in government oversight. This is deregulation, when something that was previously forbidden is allowed. Never mind the loosening of capital reserve requirements for making consumer loans...
That is ENTIRELY beside the point of how to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution has failed, fine, change it. If we've failed to change it, fine, change it.
Perhaps you misunderstand. Because the Constitution is now considered sacred, it cannot be changed to the extent required. Thus, it has failed as a self-sustaining document. It completely flavors how we should interpret the Constitution, since it is ridiculous that we should attempt to abide by the decree of a document that no longer functions well. I believe we should have a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the whole thing. It'll never happen, and if it did, the people writing the new Constitution would likely be the people abusing the system the best under the current Constitution.
My interpretation philosophy literally has no serious problems whatsoever, because if there's something you don't like, you can always change it.
And how would one change it? Do you think the Senate and House would ever do something so drastic when it would jeopardize their members' careers? Do you think it would be possible to get a referendum and pass an amendment by popular vote? Do you think it's possible to overcome the inertia of the people in the US wrt political activity? I think your philosophy is one of an optimist bent, and fails to account for the reality that most people don't care as long as they have housing, food, and entertainment. A Constitution that won't be changed is a Constitution that can't be changed, and has thus failed.
Your philosophy denies that these rights even exist: the only standard for a law is whether that law promotes your idea of an "ideal society." But there is only one definition of an "ideal society" that matters: the one the people have agreed on (and are fully capable of amending).
Well, first off, you misread my philosophy. I believe that actions taken by government officials need to assessed in the context of the greatest good. Certain things are off-limits -- anything that overrides a personal right, for example.
"What is desired now" is, necessarily, what the people want.
This is the foundation of our disagreement. I do not believe that the people have the understanding of the issues to the extent required to make the best decisions on most things. I do not believe that a nation of 300 million people should pass laws based on the tyranny of the majority. This is why we have representative government, this is why we have judges who are appointed for life terms (so that they are not overly influenced by political aspirations and the media, like the elected officials are).
What can I say -- I think that the public is miserably uninformed on important issues, and it's too easy for moneyed interests to sway them via media blasts. It's political suicide to try to effect change, since the process is dominated by those who are intertwined with the media.
There is a stranglehold on the political process which prevents useful change to the Constitution which means that the Constitution loses relevance every passing year.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as the radical Muslims demonize the West, particularly Americans, and Jews, American rebels demonized sympathizers with the crown. There were acts of terror (keep in mind that without terrorism in New Jersey and the Carolinas, the rebels would likely have lost the war, due to Tory support), there was propaganda (some of which was truth, some of which was not).
As others have noted, history is written by the winners. If you read a lot about the American Revolution (what you learned in grade school/high school is mostly crap), you'll come to view it slightly differently... and realize that it has a lot in common with the radical Muslim position. They are angry of American cultural and economic hegemony... the American Revolution was very similar, though it added political hegemony to the mix. Since today, with Capitalism having conquered Democracy, economic hegemony == political hegemony, it's no surprise that the American Empire is resented.
All that said, I am not an apoligist for Muslim extremism -- but understanding it makes it easier to battle.
Fine for sturdy cargo, but your common slob (such as myself) could NOT withstand that kind of acceleration. You'd have to make people pass physical fitness tests for insurance purposes... plus you'd have to distribute protective codpieces so that your male passengers wouldn't be scraping their balls off their shoes.
Why do you limit yourself to one valid basis for the social contract of property rights?
The problem with your logic is that it presumes that for intellectual property to exist, it MUST mirror real property; and that because the foundation of the concept does not mirror, it invalidates the concept of IP.
There is no logical reason (though there are philosophical ones) why we can't have an IP social contract in addition to a RP social contract; furthermore, we can say that due to the fundamental differences between RP & IP, the social contracts should be different (and guess what, they are!). The concepts can be parallel without being equal, and this removes the constaint of needing equivalent bases.
Also, property is not defined by the fact that only one person can utilize it at the same time. Otherwise there would be no concept of ownership in absentia. If you own land in Montana, but reside in New York... do I have every right to use your land in Montana, since I am not depriving you of the use of that land?
Regardless of what it is based upon, it is a social contract... and like it or not, there is a social contract (though disputed by yourself and others) regarding intellectual property.
As the gp said, you may disagree with the contract... but as part of society, you are bound by it unless you can overturn it.
To sum up, you're both right -- IP and RP are fundamentally different (for the reasons you state) but they both exist (for the reasons he states).
I think maybe you missed his point entirely in your eagerness to devow intellectual property, because you never addressed his point, which was to define what the concept of property rights is (a social contract), and then extend that to IP as is currently in effect.
Unfortunately, modding the puppets doesn't work when the puppets are used to mod posts, and I'm not convinced that metamoderation is agile enough (especially considering the tendency of user-generated feedback to be overwhelmingly positive) to combat sockpuppets when they are used to mod posts.
The best way to combat sockpuppets is to raise awareness of their existence and the parent-child relationship. Sure, sometimes that info is OT when post IS actually informative, or insightful, or whatever... in which case the posts should rightly be modded offtopic. However, I think it's healthy for the slashdot community for these posts to come through and be seen once a month or so.
Meh. If it were really free, you wouldn't even be able to confirm that there is something to see.
That said, I think it reprehensible that he uses sockpuppets.
Anyway, I think your post makes a lot of sense, and can be summed up in a few short words: Don't feed the trolls.
Was it just me, or did anyone else imagine parent as speaking in the voice of max headroom?
It always makes me laugh when I hear, "One minute please"...*FLUSH*..."OK, tell me".
This is on conference calls with upper management overseas, I might add.
And as for ten-year-old laptops, while it's true that their net book value should be zero (cost less accumulated depreciation), those are recorded separately on the books. So until you retire an asset, the full cost is on your books -- even if its offset by accumulated depreciation.
If the assets are no longer in service, they need to be retired -- this reverses both your original asset entry and the total of your accumulated depreciation for the assets.
In my experience, the great equalizer is A mace...
I have found this to be the best way to counter the advantage the fast-twitch savants have in FPS/RTS.
Hence, Golden Dragon in Decatur IL has no standing to sue Golden Dragon in Kissimee FL for trademark infringement.
Once case recently illustrating this was Trump's trademark of "You're Fired" in classes 9 and 16 (I believe; not sure if there were other classes also) nationwide; there was a pottery shop of the same name in Chicago that sold goods in classes 9 and 16 prior to Trump's trademark application. They ended up settling for an undisclosed amount, but basically the pottery shop owner already had the trademark (though unregistered) in Chicago, so Trump was out of luck.
To get back to the Golden Dragon example, someone trying to register "Golden Dragon" nationwide (say, if they were starting a chain) would need to negotiate with restaurants of that name in order to supplant their existing trademark.
Maybe it's just me, but I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling with the new electrics under development (or in production).
Having grown up around adults who worshipped at the altar of limited-run classic cars (59 1/2 Shelby Cobra, anyone?) I feel like we're witnessing (or in some cases, participating in -- lucky bastards) the dawn of a new era of classic cars.
I know I'm rambling, and slightly OT, but I can easily imagine the Tesla Raodster being the star of some classic car show I'll take my grandkids to.
Anyway, my point is that I feel that we're finally witnessing the green car revolution, and I'm glad to be here for it.
There is a moral issue with intentionally gaming a system to minimize the cost for yourself when you partake of common services provided by the system.
Whether or not it offends your morals depends on your personal moral code... not to get a relativistic with morality. But I believe you do the public a disservice when you make use of government services without contributing to them.
But you know, whatever floats your boat... if you think that the best thing for society is for freeloaders to make out as best as possible, while those without the means to avoid taxes bear the brunt of them, you go ahead and keep feeling that way. It's not like anything I can say will change your mind.
And as for when the US became a second-rate nation, I'll refer you to the article from earlier today about ranking 15th for broadband access... or to numerous articles you could read about the US sliding in standard of living... or the US ranking awfully in human rights... or the US ranking poorly in health... or the US ranking poorly in health insurance... or to numerous articles about the US sliding in personal freedom.
When did the US become a second-rate nation? Probably when we allowed the conglomerate corporations control of the media and government. But hey, that's just my opinion, since I shudder to think that the quality of a nation can be summed up in GDP figures.
Bite my shiny metal ass...
Double-take... did anyone else read "Xerox Hemos Self-effacing, CowboyNeal Pager"?
Or did I just come to the realization that too many 20-hour days is bad for reading comprehension and eyesight, and taking a break on slashdot is possibly not the best course of action?
There, FTF those of us who do not understand the meaning of "ex" unless it precedes -othermic, -ternal, or -tra fries please.
JK. She's now your ex... I'm guessing she found something... sounds like you should say that she was just-the-right-amount-of suspicious, not overly suspicious.
Just some food for thought...
Everytime you feed a troll, goatse inhales a kitten.
Let those with mod points downmod them into oblivion instead.
Please, think of the kittens.
Sure, we don't know whether the author of TFA is reputable, and if he is using source material and not crediting it, that's a problem -- but I, for one, think that original writing is far too rare on teh internets... and I welcome original writing even though we have no good way to verify.
Or would you rather have TFA be a blog entry that links to another blog entry that links to a press release or AP article? Then everyone can complain that no one is linking the original source...
The statement doesn't include any kind of time period for the 1 in 4 stat. Also, they do not define "been affected by".
So, 1 in 4 may have been affected by ID theft in their lifetime. Is this a surprise? Think about how many ways people can be affected by identity theft... one of which being bearing the cost of ID theft when purchasing goods, another one is needing to jump through hoops in order to complete a simple bank transaction. I'd say close to 100% of Britons have been affected... the only reason it's not 100% is because of newborns and the (possibly mythical) hermits with zero contact with the rest of the UK.
Not to be facetious... they could easily consider having a family member a victim of ID theft means being affected by ID theft.
You'll notice that they didn't say 1 in 4 Britons was a victim of ID theft in the past year...
And note,Last time I checked, porn stars aren't paid for producing gibberish.
Explicitly allowing subprime loans is a reduction in government oversight. This is deregulation, when something that was previously forbidden is allowed. Never mind the loosening of capital reserve requirements for making consumer loans...
Perhaps you misunderstand. Because the Constitution is now considered sacred, it cannot be changed to the extent required. Thus, it has failed as a self-sustaining document. It completely flavors how we should interpret the Constitution, since it is ridiculous that we should attempt to abide by the decree of a document that no longer functions well. I believe we should have a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the whole thing. It'll never happen, and if it did, the people writing the new Constitution would likely be the people abusing the system the best under the current Constitution.
And how would one change it? Do you think the Senate and House would ever do something so drastic when it would jeopardize their members' careers? Do you think it would be possible to get a referendum and pass an amendment by popular vote? Do you think it's possible to overcome the inertia of the people in the US wrt political activity? I think your philosophy is one of an optimist bent, and fails to account for the reality that most people don't care as long as they have housing, food, and entertainment. A Constitution that won't be changed is a Constitution that can't be changed, and has thus failed.
Well, first off, you misread my philosophy. I believe that actions taken by government officials need to assessed in the context of the greatest good. Certain things are off-limits -- anything that overrides a personal right, for example.
This is the foundation of our disagreement. I do not believe that the people have the understanding of the issues to the extent required to make the best decisions on most things. I do not believe that a nation of 300 million people should pass laws based on the tyranny of the majority. This is why we have representative government, this is why we have judges who are appointed for life terms (so that they are not overly influenced by political aspirations and the media, like the elected officials are).
What can I say -- I think that the public is miserably uninformed on important issues, and it's too easy for moneyed interests to sway them via media blasts. It's political suicide to try to effect change, since the process is dominated by those who are intertwined with the media.
There is a stranglehold on the political process which prevents useful change to the Constitution which means that the Constitution loses relevance every passing year.