I agree it's the responsibility of the parents to monitor their children's activities and provide guidance.
But, if I'm not mistaken, there is plenty of R-rated, NC-17 rated, X-rated, and unrated material out there. Why wouldn't it be good to have acceptable content for both children and adults?
"sometimes, you just have to say "Ok, no kids allowed."
Exactly. Like for adult content. Othertimes, you can let the kids watch or play.
"would *you* be happy if the only tv shows were mickey mouse dreck that is 'family safe,' but lacks in any real appeal for grown-ups?
"
Why, is that the situation that would arise? That's not how the movie industry does it. Furthermore, adult content, or lack thereof, does not determine what is dreck.
Just because sexual content, nudity, and violence are necessary for your vision of good adult entertainment, doesn't mean that's true for everyone. Nor does it mean that such material would not be available to you.
Blah, blah, blah. How is this different from how most software vendors operate?
Now that we're publishing a new version, version 5.0, we're not going to jump right to 6.0. Instead, please be informed that you will have the pleasure of purchasing versions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.31, 5.32, and 5.4. Or, if you buy our nifty support package, you can upgrade for free*!
*Free as in not out-of-pocket since you already paid for it.
And I'm not even going to get into the fact that a lot of these incremental upgrades will just be adding functionality that was to be incorporated into Vista in the first place. Assuring a future revenue stream?
"I've already pointed out that I don't trust technology-based solutions. Sooner or later, they'll be defeated. Every time."
The DNC list is a tech-based solution. Do you think they manually check the list?
"I just used it to follow the lead of those who have used it before me.
"
Then clarify. Harassment, like repeated unwanted contact by an entity, or coordinated by an entity, is illegal. The straw that breaks the camel's back is not guilty of harassment.
"When 100 million grocery shoppers sign up for a "Do Not Bag" list, ask me that question again.
"
Not a valid argument. Popularity does not equal legality, as discussed. My point still stands.
"Therefore, i think "unlisted" and "do not call" should remain separate. That's all I said. Anything about government in that regard is something you assumed.
"
No, that's not what you said. You said "You said that there could be a law against unsolicited calls to an unlisted number. That's bringing the government into it." Short term memory loss?
Read your post. You explicitly said that government would be involved. I was explaining that government can be involved in different ways, with different repercussions on society. There is a difference between involvement via enforcement and involvement via regulatory administration. This was in response to you drawing a parallel between government being involved in two different ways.
"Then don't sign up for the list. That way, you still have control."
Too short-sighted. It's not just a single personal issue with this one thing that the US government is being allowed to do. It's a concern about government roles, and is another step down a slippery slope that WILL affect me in the future.
"Why is it not "safe?"
If you're cynical and distrustful of the government, I can trump on that, believe me. But a list of phone numbers is relatively benign in any context."
See above. And it looks benign, but the first steps usually do. Why not add addresses to the list, to help prevent junk mail? How about email addresses, while we're at it. And, since we already have this great database, let's add tax information, social security numbers, place of employment, age, sex, race... you get the idea?
"Current Wi-Fi technology tops out at 54 Mbps. Remarkably, Airgo's technology also beats wired home-networking technology, which generally reaches only as high as 100 Mbps"
Airgo's technology doesn't beat wired home-networking technology; Airgo's tech isn't even deployed. Instead, Airgo's tech is faster than the average home network.
Assuming the specs given are correct, this will likely result in lowered prices on 1Gbps wired network utility, as people will be choosing to upgrade to Airgo's MIMO or to 1Gbps.
We'll be faced with the same choice as now -- slower with lower security but nice wireless access; or faster, more secure, tied down to wires.
Joe Sixpack won't likely upgrade until we get faster broadband.
The quote is obviously pulled out of my ass, but more press definitely leads to higher sales. I don't have the link handy or the time to search for it, but check out the sales figures in Japan for the PS2. There are spikes in Japanese sales when the US and European versions came out, although possibly they are due to distribution surges in Japan (like if units were'nt being shipped before the US & Europe releases).
"Just because patents are supposed to grant you a monopoly, that monopoly is supposed to be limited in time and subject to the provision that the IP gets licensed to all comers, so invention and distribution are both served.
" (emphasis mine)
BS. Licensing is at the discretion of the patent holder, as it was intended to be. The point of licensing was/is to allow inventors to profit from their ideas while not having to produce the tech themselves.
"The issue - and the point of the problem the article has with Bayh-Dole - is that those with patent monopolies tend NOT to license or cross-license their products - which raises the cost of those products to monopoly rates and limits the spread of the IP - which is supposed to be the point of patents in the first place.
" (emphasis mine)
BS again. Lack of licensing != lack of IP distribution. Pharma for example -- the information is available to everyone, by law: composition of drug delivery vehicle (tablet, etc), molecular structure of the drug, etc. Why do you think that when one company releases a drug that acts via a new mechanism, there are similar drugs on the market from other companies as soon as the testing and FDA approval can get done?
The problem with the patent laws is the duration.
"In a TRUE free market, you take your chances and the only thing keeping you from bankruptcy is smarts and speed."
And secrecy. Keep the valuable info to myself.
"And that's how it SHOULD be - raw evolution in action.
You monkeys just can't handle that, however.
"
Nice troll. What you appear to miss is that without patents, there is no profit incentive to share your discoveries. Where would your innovation come from then? Or would you prefer to limit technological growth? Obviously, you wouldn't want government to fund research, sincew that's not free market. So why would anyone invest hundreds of millions in research and research facilities when they will not earn the money back?
In a TRUE free market, monopolies exist and bleed their customers dry. Yet, you think reverting to a true free market will reduce monopolies?
You could be right. Or, they could have been referring to a gamble by Microsoft... The 'stake' is the amount that you invest/wager; the 'prize' is the amount you receive if you win.
Why this matters to analysts is that Microsoft could purchase the shares above current market value, which might cause a revaluation of AOL stock. Alternatively, if MS is overpaying, they could be faced with taking the difference between purchase price and value as a loss.
"more seriously, we know these huge publishers can do a simultaneous worldwide release, why don't they?? wouldn't that discourage a little bit of piracy by people who want to get things early?? i'd think they'd be all about that....
"
Well, in this case:
(1) They'd have to delay the release in the US, and possibly Europe. Producing the machines takes time and production capacity, which is not cheap. You don't want machines sitting in inventory if you can help it.
(2) They want to make sure they time the release with a major consumer purchase period. In the US, Thanksgiving weekend is the biggest retail sales weekend of the year. Not so in Europe or Japan.
(3) Multiple releases creates a psychological effect that encourages 'late' adopters to buy. More press. More games. "Holy crap, if people in Europe can buy it, should I have one by now?" By 'late', in this case, I mean the people who don't buy it at release -- not people like me, who will be buying in 2008.
"Tokyo Game Show marks the first time that consumers will be able to experience the power of Xbox 360 firsthand. A number of key titles will be on display at the Xbox 360 booth:
"
The press release goes on to list a bunch of games. Curiously, there is no mention of which of the games will be available at release... only that the titles 'will be on display'.
"It's nothing different than the age requirements for an R-Rated movie at the movie theatre. It simply says that little Johnny can't plunk down $50 and buy GTA.
"
Except, of course, that the movie industry voluntarily enforces the MPAA rating system. There is no law requiring them to do so. Movie retailers agreed to this to prevent such a law being passed.
I feel the game industry should do the same -- game publishers have gotten on board, and so should game retailers.
A plus side of this, for those that wish the ommunity to protect the precious moral fiber of their children, is that there would be a disincentive to produce games with 'objectionable' material. There's a very real reason that the movie industry bothers to publish PG13 titles... catch the drift?
"Regulating video game sales WITHOUT regulating the sales of books, movies, cds, magazines on the same basis is uneven and therefore unethical."
It's not unethical if you believe that video games are more damaging than the other media you've listed. It may be unlawful to do so without proof of greater damage, but ethical judgments are based upon belief, not fact. Although, it can be argued that passing such a law without scientific consensus on greater damages is unethical.
But, since when have lawmakers depended on scientific evidence to support moral code enforcement laws?
That said, the game industry has one way to stop the uproar without legal action -- to enforce the ESRB ratings voluntarily. The movie industry has done this, for precisely the same reason.
"Huh? If I write a program that does something Very Interesting(tm), does it get less Interesting if 10 people run it? 100 people? 1,000,000? "
utility != value. 'Interesting' has nothing to do with economics, unless 'interesting' has a perceived value.
If I create a program called "Competitive Advantage," that gives me exactly that, and I am the only one with that program, the program is worth a ton more to me if I'm the only one who has it. If 10, 100, or 1,000,000 run it, the program has less value because it confers less of a competetive advantage.
Whether or not the program still confers the same literal abitlity, the 'advantage' or 'value' conferred will be less.
"Grammer [1,sp] checkers aren't [2, written communication should not use contractions] half as useful as spellcheckers. While most people regularly stumble upon words they don't [3, contraction] immediately [4, split infinitive] know how to spell, only the most useless dumbwits[5, not a word] have grammar problems. It's [6, contraction; 7, unclear precedent] because grammar is important not only for writing, but also in speech [missing comma, but debateable, so not counted] and therefore trained a lot more.
It would certainly reduce the number of errors like "would of", but people who write that are FUBAR [8, acronym, slang] anyway and shouldn't [9, contraction] rely on software to get stuff like that right [10, run-on sentence]. The ability to write semi-competend [11, spelling; 12, improper usage, this should be an adverb (semi-competently)] is like breathing or eating: better done without artificial help.
P.S.: I've hidden 5 errors in this post. Check your grammar checker by finding them all."
My point is that grammar is not a universal set of rules, and that different rules exist for different usages. According to your rules, 5 erros exist; according to my rules, 12 errors exist. The advent of the dictionary in the 17th (I think) century began to standardize spelling in the English language. Grammar, however, is not standardized, and continues to evolve. Furthermore, English grammar comes from a multitude of other languages, which greatly confuses the issue. This is why English grammar is contextual.
"Ah, this is what many economists can't wrap their head around. Information is not a limited resource. It's artificially limited by various laws, but it's not a diminishing resource. It is not "used up". Thus the barter analogy fails: if two people exchange information, they end up with twice as much as they had to begin with."
Except, the barter anology does work here, because the true units being exchanged are time*(intellectual productivity). He bartered the time it took to come up with A for his trading partner's time it took to come up with B.
The values of A and B are decreased as they are shared with other people (scarcity). So the economic forces driving the price of information are still scarcity and demand.
"Some things are not free because they are limited and thus acquire value based on rarity"
Exactly. Intellectual prowess is a limited resource. Time is a limited resource. Products derived from these two things are therefore a limited resource -- i.e., new technology is a limited resource.
Is the cost of transferring tech/info/intellectual material very cheap? Yes. But this does not mean that the value of these items is negligible. Cost of transferral != value of good. Also, non-diminishing resource != unlimited resource. One of the limits on a resource is access.
The best way of ensuring that your information has the highest value is to keep it a secret. This is not an artificial market force (caused by legal action) at all. Once information becomes common knowledge, it becomes almost worthless in terms of trade. This is the only time that your concept applies -- that information is basically free.
What is the incentive to create/invent for a seller of information? Profit.
So, the question is, how do you sell your information (or barter it, if you want) but maintain your secrecy? DRM. Unpublished proprietary standards or formats. Hidden source code.
How else can one profit from their information? By offering it as a goodwill gesture, such as in the article, so that people will be more likely to purchase either other information you have (that is still secret) or hard goods you have.
Copyrights and patents, the artificial limits that you describe, exist to protect the profit motive of creators. Without this legal protection, the other way for individuals to limit the supply of their intellectual good is to keep it secret.
And the downside of this secrecy is that no one else can use the information to develop information that depends upon it.
So, before you slag off on economists for not understanding something, get a grasp of fundamentals.
"How are you going to get a misdemeanor conviction of someone wardialing from an outsourcing center in Singapore?
Well, how are you going to keep them from wardialing people on the DNC list? This circumvents both prevention methods, unfortunately.
Just because it's "adjacent" and lacks a "trespassers will be shot" sign doesn't mean you can't figure out where the boundary lies."
Except, of course, that sometimes you can't tell. Ever been to a nature preserve / arboretum / public park that is not fenced off from adjacent undeveloped (but private) property? Often there is no way to tell where one ends and the other begins. Sometimes you don't even know there is any private property there.
If the number cannot be found on the list of numbers provided by the local telco (by default, unlisted numbers will not be there)then it can't be called. So the analogy is, if there is no sign saying "here I am, and here's my contact information" then their privacy needs to be protected.
I'm curious as to whether you feel this is similar to open Wi-Fi networks... once I'm authenticated and allowed by the server to access the system, am I trespassing?
"On the Internet, you cannot control to whom your advice, remarks, opinions about a particular doctor reaches.. "
Which is why the information is considered to be published, and is governed by libel laws.
"anyway, there are many court precedents which rule that a NDA is implied on part of the doctor even without expressly agreed (although its necessary for successfull defense).. just because a patient did not or MORE IMPORTANTLY couldn't sign a NDA doesn't mean the doc can go ahead and disclose the patient's information"
But the concern here is whether patients have the right to disclose information about their treatment, not whether patients have the right to privacy.
If a patient wishes to file a formal complaint that results in legal sanctions against the doctor, they may do so. But if the patient wishes instead to inform others of their experience, without pursuing legal action, they may also do so. Protection from libel in published sources already exists, and applies to blogs.
No, because the calling party (if smart) would have documentation of the permission. Furthermore, the intent of the call is important. If you are a telephone solicitor, the law would apply.
"It's exactly like saying "It's okay to trespass on my property if my house number is plain for all to see, but if my house number is hidden, then trespassing on my property will be penalized."
A more valid comparison would be: If your property is adjacent to public property, and if there is no way of knowing that your property is actually your property, and not public property, am I committing criminal trespass by walking on your property?
"If my phone rings, I don't know who's calling until I look at the caller ID"
Get ring-of-distinction.
"Inasmuch as you didn't argue against my previous statement that the cumulative effect of telemarketers' calls can have essentially the same effect as harassment, I'll assume you agree with me on that point. Therefore, it's okay in this case.
"
BS. If someone feels harassed, anyone who does anything to contribute to that, even if their contribution is legal and justified, is guilt of harassment? I did respond to that because it's laughable. What if I feel harassed by having someone bag my groceries at the supermarket? I didn't ask them to. Are they now guilty of harassment?
"Well, there's no legitimate reason"
In your opinion, there is no legitimate reason. According to law, there is.
"If you're going to go that far, I'd just prefer to let them administer the list. An unlisted number excludes everyone who doesn't have your number. The list merely excludes a defined class of caller. That's a distinction worth making."
No, the distinction is between there being a list of people, and there not being a list of people. There is no government-administered list of unlisted numbers. There would have to be a list of DNC registry numbers. While they may semantically seem the same, they are far, far different. The method of control is in the hands of the victims, not in the hands of government.
"However... I think government action is appropriate for situations in which no one else has the scope and/or the authority to address a situation adequately. As far as I can tell, this is one of those situations."
Again, I'm not saying there should be legal (federal) recourse for telemarketers who harass individuals. I'm saying that the DNC method is not safe for the people.
This has nothing to do with the size of government; it has to do with the scope of government.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it's the responsibility of the parents to monitor their children's activities and provide guidance.
But, if I'm not mistaken, there is plenty of R-rated, NC-17 rated, X-rated, and unrated material out there. Why wouldn't it be good to have acceptable content for both children and adults?
"sometimes, you just have to say "Ok, no kids allowed."
Exactly. Like for adult content. Othertimes, you can let the kids watch or play.
"would *you* be happy if the only tv shows were mickey mouse dreck that is 'family safe,' but lacks in any real appeal for grown-ups? "
Why, is that the situation that would arise? That's not how the movie industry does it. Furthermore, adult content, or lack thereof, does not determine what is dreck.
Just because sexual content, nudity, and violence are necessary for your vision of good adult entertainment, doesn't mean that's true for everyone. Nor does it mean that such material would not be available to you.
Blah, blah, blah. How is this different from how most software vendors operate?
Now that we're publishing a new version, version 5.0, we're not going to jump right to 6.0. Instead, please be informed that you will have the pleasure of purchasing versions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.31, 5.32, and 5.4. Or, if you buy our nifty support package, you can upgrade for free*!
*Free as in not out-of-pocket since you already paid for it.
And I'm not even going to get into the fact that a lot of these incremental upgrades will just be adding functionality that was to be incorporated into Vista in the first place. Assuring a future revenue stream?
"I've already pointed out that I don't trust technology-based solutions. Sooner or later, they'll be defeated. Every time."
The DNC list is a tech-based solution. Do you think they manually check the list?
"I just used it to follow the lead of those who have used it before me. "
Then clarify. Harassment, like repeated unwanted contact by an entity, or coordinated by an entity, is illegal. The straw that breaks the camel's back is not guilty of harassment.
"When 100 million grocery shoppers sign up for a "Do Not Bag" list, ask me that question again. "
Not a valid argument. Popularity does not equal legality, as discussed. My point still stands.
"Therefore, i think "unlisted" and "do not call" should remain separate. That's all I said. Anything about government in that regard is something you assumed. "
No, that's not what you said. You said "You said that there could be a law against unsolicited calls to an unlisted number. That's bringing the government into it." Short term memory loss?
Read your post. You explicitly said that government would be involved. I was explaining that government can be involved in different ways, with different repercussions on society. There is a difference between involvement via enforcement and involvement via regulatory administration.
This was in response to you drawing a parallel between government being involved in two different ways.
"Then don't sign up for the list. That way, you still have control."
Too short-sighted. It's not just a single personal issue with this one thing that the US government is being allowed to do. It's a concern about government roles, and is another step down a slippery slope that WILL affect me in the future.
"Why is it not "safe?"
If you're cynical and distrustful of the government, I can trump on that, believe me. But a list of phone numbers is relatively benign in any context."
See above. And it looks benign, but the first steps usually do. Why not add addresses to the list, to help prevent junk mail? How about email addresses, while we're at it. And, since we already have this great database, let's add tax information, social security numbers, place of employment, age, sex, race... you get the idea?
"Current Wi-Fi technology tops out at 54 Mbps. Remarkably, Airgo's technology also beats wired home-networking technology, which generally reaches only as high as 100 Mbps"
Airgo's technology doesn't beat wired home-networking technology; Airgo's tech isn't even deployed. Instead, Airgo's tech is faster than the average home network.
Assuming the specs given are correct, this will likely result in lowered prices on 1Gbps wired network utility, as people will be choosing to upgrade to Airgo's MIMO or to 1Gbps.
We'll be faced with the same choice as now -- slower with lower security but nice wireless access; or faster, more secure, tied down to wires.
Joe Sixpack won't likely upgrade until we get faster broadband.
The quote is obviously pulled out of my ass, but more press definitely leads to higher sales. I don't have the link handy or the time to search for it, but check out the sales figures in Japan for the PS2. There are spikes in Japanese sales when the US and European versions came out, although possibly they are due to distribution surges in Japan (like if units were'nt being shipped before the US & Europe releases).
"Just because patents are supposed to grant you a monopoly, that monopoly is supposed to be limited in time and subject to the provision that the IP gets licensed to all comers, so invention and distribution are both served. " (emphasis mine)
BS. Licensing is at the discretion of the patent holder, as it was intended to be. The point of licensing was/is to allow inventors to profit from their ideas while not having to produce the tech themselves.
"The issue - and the point of the problem the article has with Bayh-Dole - is that those with patent monopolies tend NOT to license or cross-license their products - which raises the cost of those products to monopoly rates and limits the spread of the IP - which is supposed to be the point of patents in the first place. " (emphasis mine)
BS again. Lack of licensing != lack of IP distribution. Pharma for example -- the information is available to everyone, by law: composition of drug delivery vehicle (tablet, etc), molecular structure of the drug, etc. Why do you think that when one company releases a drug that acts via a new mechanism, there are similar drugs on the market from other companies as soon as the testing and FDA approval can get done?
The problem with the patent laws is the duration.
"In a TRUE free market, you take your chances and the only thing keeping you from bankruptcy is smarts and speed."
And secrecy. Keep the valuable info to myself.
"And that's how it SHOULD be - raw evolution in action.
You monkeys just can't handle that, however. "
Nice troll. What you appear to miss is that without patents, there is no profit incentive to share your discoveries. Where would your innovation come from then? Or would you prefer to limit technological growth? Obviously, you wouldn't want government to fund research, sincew that's not free market. So why would anyone invest hundreds of millions in research and research facilities when they will not earn the money back?
In a TRUE free market, monopolies exist and bleed their customers dry. Yet, you think reverting to a true free market will reduce monopolies?
"And just as long as there's no numeric keypad, we should be okay."
I hope they do include a numeric keypad. I'm an accountant -- I could treat it as a business expense and save some money on my taxes!
Now, if only Nintendo put out a green see-through visor as an accessory...
You could be right. Or, they could have been referring to a gamble by Microsoft... The 'stake' is the amount that you invest/wager; the 'prize' is the amount you receive if you win.
Why this matters to analysts is that Microsoft could purchase the shares above current market value, which might cause a revaluation of AOL stock. Alternatively, if MS is overpaying, they could be faced with taking the difference between purchase price and value as a loss.
Thanks, but I just thought it odd that the press release didn't say...
"more seriously, we know these huge publishers can do a simultaneous worldwide release, why don't they?? wouldn't that discourage a little bit of piracy by people who want to get things early?? i'd think they'd be all about that.... "
Well, in this case:
(1) They'd have to delay the release in the US, and possibly Europe. Producing the machines takes time and production capacity, which is not cheap. You don't want machines sitting in inventory if you can help it.
(2) They want to make sure they time the release with a major consumer purchase period. In the US, Thanksgiving weekend is the biggest retail sales weekend of the year. Not so in Europe or Japan.
(3) Multiple releases creates a psychological effect that encourages 'late' adopters to buy. More press. More games. "Holy crap, if people in Europe can buy it, should I have one by now?" By 'late', in this case, I mean the people who don't buy it at release -- not people like me, who will be buying in 2008.
"Tokyo Game Show marks the first time that consumers will be able to experience the power of Xbox 360 firsthand. A number of key titles will be on display at the Xbox 360 booth: "
The press release goes on to list a bunch of games. Curiously, there is no mention of which of the games will be available at release... only that the titles 'will be on display'.
"It's oddly addictive to poke around and see where the spam is actually coming from." "
Kermit agrees. Miss Piggy unavailable for comment.
"It's nothing different than the age requirements for an R-Rated movie at the movie theatre. It simply says that little Johnny can't plunk down $50 and buy GTA. "
Except, of course, that the movie industry voluntarily enforces the MPAA rating system. There is no law requiring them to do so. Movie retailers agreed to this to prevent such a law being passed.
I feel the game industry should do the same -- game publishers have gotten on board, and so should game retailers.
A plus side of this, for those that wish the ommunity to protect the precious moral fiber of their children, is that there would be a disincentive to produce games with 'objectionable' material. There's a very real reason that the movie industry bothers to publish PG13 titles... catch the drift?
"Regulating video game sales WITHOUT regulating the sales of books, movies, cds, magazines on the same basis is uneven and therefore unethical."
It's not unethical if you believe that video games are more damaging than the other media you've listed. It may be unlawful to do so without proof of greater damage, but ethical judgments are based upon belief, not fact. Although, it can be argued that passing such a law without scientific consensus on greater damages is unethical.
But, since when have lawmakers depended on scientific evidence to support moral code enforcement laws?
That said, the game industry has one way to stop the uproar without legal action -- to enforce the ESRB ratings voluntarily. The movie industry has done this, for precisely the same reason.
I'm sure you realized that I verbed that noun in response to the author doing the same :)
the infinitive is "to do know". that part of the sentence should have been constructed as "they do not know immediately".
A run on sentence is an error according to a ton of grammarians, it depends on which grammar set you choose to apply. That is my point.
"Huh? If I write a program that does something Very Interesting(tm), does it get less Interesting if 10 people run it? 100 people? 1,000,000? "
utility != value. 'Interesting' has nothing to do with economics, unless 'interesting' has a perceived value.
If I create a program called "Competitive Advantage," that gives me exactly that, and I am the only one with that program, the program is worth a ton more to me if I'm the only one who has it. If 10, 100, or 1,000,000 run it, the program has less value because it confers less of a competetive advantage.
Whether or not the program still confers the same literal abitlity, the 'advantage' or 'value' conferred will be less.
conversational english
Exactly my point. First, op was writing, not conversing. Second, there are different rules for grammar depending on situation.
5 errors?
"Grammer [1,sp] checkers aren't [2, written communication should not use contractions] half as useful as spellcheckers. While most people regularly stumble upon words they don't [3, contraction] immediately [4, split infinitive] know how to spell, only the most useless dumbwits[5, not a word] have grammar problems. It's [6, contraction; 7, unclear precedent] because grammar is important not only for writing, but also in speech [missing comma, but debateable, so not counted] and therefore trained a lot more. It would certainly reduce the number of errors like "would of", but people who write that are FUBAR [8, acronym, slang] anyway and shouldn't [9, contraction] rely on software to get stuff like that right [10, run-on sentence]. The ability to write semi-competend [11, spelling; 12, improper usage, this should be an adverb (semi-competently)] is like breathing or eating: better done without artificial help. P.S.: I've hidden 5 errors in this post. Check your grammar checker by finding them all."
My point is that grammar is not a universal set of rules, and that different rules exist for different usages. According to your rules, 5 erros exist; according to my rules, 12 errors exist. The advent of the dictionary in the 17th (I think) century began to standardize spelling in the English language. Grammar, however, is not standardized, and continues to evolve. Furthermore, English grammar comes from a multitude of other languages, which greatly confuses the issue. This is why English grammar is contextual.
"Ah, this is what many economists can't wrap their head around. Information is not a limited resource. It's artificially limited by various laws, but it's not a diminishing resource. It is not "used up". Thus the barter analogy fails: if two people exchange information, they end up with twice as much as they had to begin with."
Except, the barter anology does work here, because the true units being exchanged are time*(intellectual productivity). He bartered the time it took to come up with A for his trading partner's time it took to come up with B.
The values of A and B are decreased as they are shared with other people (scarcity). So the economic forces driving the price of information are still scarcity and demand.
"Some things are not free because they are limited and thus acquire value based on rarity"
Exactly. Intellectual prowess is a limited resource. Time is a limited resource. Products derived from these two things are therefore a limited resource -- i.e., new technology is a limited resource.
Is the cost of transferring tech/info/intellectual material very cheap? Yes. But this does not mean that the value of these items is negligible. Cost of transferral != value of good. Also, non-diminishing resource != unlimited resource. One of the limits on a resource is access.
The best way of ensuring that your information has the highest value is to keep it a secret. This is not an artificial market force (caused by legal action) at all. Once information becomes common knowledge, it becomes almost worthless in terms of trade. This is the only time that your concept applies -- that information is basically free.
What is the incentive to create/invent for a seller of information? Profit.
So, the question is, how do you sell your information (or barter it, if you want) but maintain your secrecy? DRM. Unpublished proprietary standards or formats. Hidden source code.
How else can one profit from their information? By offering it as a goodwill gesture, such as in the article, so that people will be more likely to purchase either other information you have (that is still secret) or hard goods you have.
Copyrights and patents, the artificial limits that you describe, exist to protect the profit motive of creators. Without this legal protection, the other way for individuals to limit the supply of their intellectual good is to keep it secret.
And the downside of this secrecy is that no one else can use the information to develop information that depends upon it.
So, before you slag off on economists for not understanding something, get a grasp of fundamentals.
"How are you going to get a misdemeanor conviction of someone wardialing from an outsourcing center in Singapore?
Well, how are you going to keep them from wardialing people on the DNC list? This circumvents both prevention methods, unfortunately.
Just because it's "adjacent" and lacks a "trespassers will be shot" sign doesn't mean you can't figure out where the boundary lies."
Except, of course, that sometimes you can't tell. Ever been to a nature preserve / arboretum / public park that is not fenced off from adjacent undeveloped (but private) property? Often there is no way to tell where one ends and the other begins. Sometimes you don't even know there is any private property there.
If the number cannot be found on the list of numbers provided by the local telco (by default, unlisted numbers will not be there)then it can't be called. So the analogy is, if there is no sign saying "here I am, and here's my contact information" then their privacy needs to be protected.
I'm curious as to whether you feel this is similar to open Wi-Fi networks... once I'm authenticated and allowed by the server to access the system, am I trespassing?
Well, you also get higher ground clearance :)
"On the Internet, you cannot control to whom your advice, remarks, opinions about a particular doctor reaches.. "
Which is why the information is considered to be published, and is governed by libel laws.
"anyway, there are many court precedents which rule that a NDA is implied on part of the doctor even without expressly agreed (although its necessary for successfull defense).. just because a patient did not or MORE IMPORTANTLY couldn't sign a NDA doesn't mean the doc can go ahead and disclose the patient's information"
But the concern here is whether patients have the right to disclose information about their treatment, not whether patients have the right to privacy.
If a patient wishes to file a formal complaint that results in legal sanctions against the doctor, they may do so. But if the patient wishes instead to inform others of their experience, without pursuing legal action, they may also do so. Protection from libel in published sources already exists, and applies to blogs.
No, because the calling party (if smart) would have documentation of the permission. Furthermore, the intent of the call is important. If you are a telephone solicitor, the law would apply.
"It's exactly like saying "It's okay to trespass on my property if my house number is plain for all to see, but if my house number is hidden, then trespassing on my property will be penalized."
A more valid comparison would be: If your property is adjacent to public property, and if there is no way of knowing that your property is actually your property, and not public property, am I committing criminal trespass by walking on your property?
"If my phone rings, I don't know who's calling until I look at the caller ID"
Get ring-of-distinction.
"Inasmuch as you didn't argue against my previous statement that the cumulative effect of telemarketers' calls can have essentially the same effect as harassment, I'll assume you agree with me on that point. Therefore, it's okay in this case. "
BS. If someone feels harassed, anyone who does anything to contribute to that, even if their contribution is legal and justified, is guilt of harassment? I did respond to that because it's laughable. What if I feel harassed by having someone bag my groceries at the supermarket? I didn't ask them to. Are they now guilty of harassment?
"Well, there's no legitimate reason"
In your opinion, there is no legitimate reason. According to law, there is.
"If you're going to go that far, I'd just prefer to let them administer the list. An unlisted number excludes everyone who doesn't have your number. The list merely excludes a defined class of caller. That's a distinction worth making."
No, the distinction is between there being a list of people, and there not being a list of people. There is no government-administered list of unlisted numbers. There would have to be a list of DNC registry numbers. While they may semantically seem the same, they are far, far different. The method of control is in the hands of the victims, not in the hands of government.
"However... I think government action is appropriate for situations in which no one else has the scope and/or the authority to address a situation adequately. As far as I can tell, this is one of those situations."
Again, I'm not saying there should be legal (federal) recourse for telemarketers who harass individuals. I'm saying that the DNC method is not safe for the people.
This has nothing to do with the size of government; it has to do with the scope of government.