folks would be wanting to read this very fine text on the econ. of copyright, which msakes the same points as the article on copyright-as-monopoly, in a slightly more rigourous fashion.
Since Microsoft makes all of its money from patented software, it has opted into the system of coercion which is the basis of government, so your invoking of the concept of "initiation of force" is invalid. Microsoft benefits from a privilege granted by the government to impede the free use of information by others, so it cannot object to modifications of that (illegitimate) privilege.
And I've always thought that a definition of "initiation of force" whereby a black man sitting at a lunch counter can be taken to be "initiating force" is rather silly, and certainly a liability rather than an asset to the libertarian cause.
Without wanting to seem patronising, have you actually read Smith? To use "the invisible hand" as an argument against antitrust law is a pretty damn appalling mangling of "The Wealth of Nations". Smith was absolutely aware of what happens to consumers when powerful companies dominate a marketplace; the judge's argument about "inhibiting innovation" is clearly traceable to Smith.
A couple of quotes from The Wealth of Mations, showing what Smith actually thought about the Invisible Hand in this type of case:
"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
"The monopolists, by keeping the market continually understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. "
"In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interest sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. "
You are entirely entitled to your views on Microsoft and the government, but please don't try to claim that Smith shared them (I would also suggest that in supporting Microsoft, you are not perhaps as consistent a libertarian as you think you are).
Well, "Crusoe Debian Dreamcast Cinnabon" is an anagram of "Concessionaire adumbrate and NBC". The "concessionaire" is cleraly Linus, "adumbrate" is a reference to the number-crunching power of the Crusoe processor, but where does NBC fit in?
Well, let's see, NBC is owned by General Electric, which is a major competitor of Sega, who make the Dreamcast. Jack Welch, the CEO of GE is a known associate of Warren Buffet, who is thought to be a big fan of the Cinnabom [tm] breakfast roll.
It seems to me that the logo must be part of a secret code between Welch, Buffet and Stallman (probably all members of the Illuminati), to put the wind up Sega, and remind them not to stop putting Satanic symbols in the Sonic games.
Although your point is probably valid, in that I didn't give much evidence of not being a chickenshit, I'm actually not one. Among the organisations and people with whom I've picked fights during a short but belligerent life are: the Inland Revenue (several times), the British Army, the Swiss Banking Commission and the Richardson family (S. London). I've looked into the barrel of a gun and talked my way out of it. As a community leader, I've stood face to face with a man who was later convicted for arranging the murder of three (fellow) drug dealers and told him he wasn't welcome in our estate. This isn't macho-talk, just a record of the things that happen to you if you're articulate, political and more than averagely cocky.
Of all the battles I've been in, however, the ones which left me worst bruised have been fought against educational institutions. You are wrong to assume that they will hold back from being vindictive; they correctly assume that they will get the best of the PR battle. Big universities can flunk you, throw you out, etc, etc and who are the newspapers going to believe? A prestigious institution of learning, or some guy who flunked college and claims that they have a vendetta against him? As soon as you take on the authority which rates people for credibility, you start to develop credibility problems of your own.
Second, to Mawbid:
I've done a lot more things that I regret than you have, for example; both sins of ommission and of commission. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that people should always stand up for what they believe in.
But I'd urge ttypo to consider whether this is really "something he believes in", or just something he wants. If it's the first, fight like a tiger. If it's the second, you need to weigh up the balance of advantages. As far as I can see, it's the second, and the balance of advantages says "give up and move on".
Many things are worth going to the wire for. Political views, loved ones, the truth. Possessions never are. And a domain name looks much more like a possession than anything else to me.
God, I never thought I was going to get so philosophical. I must care about this more than I thought.
jsm
PS On a practical note, I might suggest that a write-in protest by/. reading Purdue alumni might a) alert the administrators that they might be alienating potential benefactors through their actions and b) would probably not get ttypo into too much trouble.
AC's solution is the very best deal that you could reasonably hope to get out of this. You are entirely in the right, morally speaking, and probably legally speaking too. But (this is the important bit):
1. University administrators are nasty people. If you get in their way, they will be needlessly cruel to you.
2. Universities have a million and one ways to fsck you up, whether or not you win in court. This website is not worth your whole rest of life.
3. And you will always have a hard time getting any sort of support, because people will always believe their side of things -- when people don't understand the issues, they go by reputation, and Purdue has a better one than you do.
In general, I'd advise anyone to fight like a tiger if right is on their side. But educators are such vindictive sods that I'd make an exception. Your two options are:
1. Give 'em the name, but scorch the earth, destroy your site and let them deal with the user complaints. This will annoy them, but they'll have their name, and they won't be angry enough to hurt you.
2. Co-operate fully, as per AC's suggestion. This way, you have to swallow some crow, but keep your site and keep your users happy.
What I would not do is to organise any sort of student protest. This will frighten and humiliate the admins, and they will break you on a wheel in revenge.
Of course, all this is assuming that you have some sort of life which you would like to preserve. If you're keen on fighting it out to the death, go for it, and good luck to you!
either way, look on it as a learning experience . . .
close but no cigar... in fact, the courts are well aware of the point you make and draft judgements accordingly. Anyone who tries to get round an antitrust judgement by "co-operating" between the split up companies will find himself right back in court, and this time the charge will be contempt.
Oh yeh, and companies exist to make money for their shareholders considered only as their shareholders. They're not allowed to take into account any other interests that their shareholders might have. Otherwise, with so much of the USA owned by pension funds (ie owned by workers), we might see something really strange -- what Peter Drucker calls "pension fund socialism"
I doubt that much of use will come out of this experiment. The element of auto-suggestion is too great. We all know that Kevin Warwick really really wants this experiment to work. So, they press the button, his arm moves -- who's to say that the signal really moved his arm? Unless he's prepared to hand over complete control to the machine, and effectively paralyse himself, I'd suggest that his arm moved because he moved it.
And then we have the element of training. It's known that you can train various muscles to react to stimuli, so if the chip starts working, it seems to me that it would be hard to argue from there to the conclusion that "the right signal" had been given, still less that a chip which worked in Kevin Warwick would be transferable to anyone else.
Speaking as someone who spends upwards of ten hours a day with my face held about nine inches from a VDU screen, I take quite an interest in what life is like for blind people.
Given the work and hobbies of the typical/. reader, I'd suggest that others do the same.
I said the Constitution guarantees the right to private property
As far as I'm aware, this isn't true. Pretty much the only thing the Constitution says about private property is that you can be taxed on it. I'm talking about the American Constitution, of course; I have no knowledge of any other, so your mileage may vary.
In RMS's opinion, less is more; he restricts your freedom to do whatever you want with his code
Hmmmm... this is only true if you count imposing a proprietary licence as "doing something". Personally, I have a problem with this; I always thought that ownership was not an activity.
On the other hand, I'm a long-haired Marxist (as in, I've got long hair, and I'm a Marxist), so feel free to ignore me.
I tend to agree with you on the "battle of the licences" issue; to my way of thinking, RMS needs to be very careful to avoid the slide into nuthood.
"We break up We break down We don't care if the school falls down No more English, no more French No more sitting on the old school bench If that teacher interferes Sit her down and box her ears If that does not put her right Blow here up with dynamite
Kick the tables Kick the chairs Kick the teacher down the stairs If that does not shut her up Dynamite will blow her up"
We were in Britain, you see, no guns. But still pretty violent.
"Troll"? A bit harsh, perhaps. The tell tale question-mark-instead-of-apostrophe is a mark brought in by use of microsoft products to edit HTML (specifically, the Microsoft "smartquote" is an incompatible character), and the "Demoroniser" is a program which strips these incompatbile characters out.
It's not my fault that the Demoroniser is called "The Demoroniser"!
hmmm... the Masada, and the destruction of the Temple, fair enough. But the Masicure at York? I doubt you'd find one Jew in twenty who knows what the hell you're talking about.
PS, asking which communists I'm talking about it pretty numb -- communists are anti capitalism. And in the mid 1900's, the low moral values of North America in general were used as propaganda against capitalism.
The level of this debate can be pretty accurately ascertained by the fact that both interlocutors seem to be happy with assuming that abortion was not much more prevalent under communist governments -- in Russia it was the main means of contraception.
In 500 years I want people to remember exactly what the Nazi's did.
I don't think you have to be a Nazi, or a holocaust denier, or even a racist to profoundly hope the opposite. I don't think that any linguistic drift in what will be by then an obscure and more or less meaningless term will constitute any dilution of the condemnation that future historians will make of the Nazis.
options are not being accounted for in the P&L because they don't really fit there
respectfully disagree (the rest of this post is actually very good).
To paraphrase Warren Buffet:
If options aren't compensation, what are they? If compensation isn't an expense, what is it? And if an expense doesn't belong in the P&L, where in heaven's name does it belong?
Speaking as a man with three years' experience as a stock market regulator...
You're full of it, mate, and a poor Anthony Elgindy wannabe to boot. Slashdot posted a link to a site with a critique of MS accounting policies, which critique adds nothing to information already in the public domain other than the word "fraud" (which it is cleary wrong to add). Slashdot have not libelled MS, nor have they done anything which might bring down the wrath of the SEC. In any case, the public statement provisions of the law relating to IPOs have definite exceptions for media outlets (Or should newspapers stop publishing news in the run up to the IPO?)
And finally, your accusation that/. was trying to "manipulate MS' share price" is equally brainless. What on earth does the price of MS have to do with andover.net's IPO? You seem to be labouring under the impression that the stock market is a zero-sum game.
full of it, I reiterate, and you will get no thanks from the SEC for wasting their time.
Blandness and Disneyfication is not what Spielberg & Co are paying $250m for.
Hyerk. The trouble is that, although they started out with good intentions, it all rather develops into a death by a thousand cuts. Nobody (or at least not so many people) buys something with the express intention of screwing it up. But the trouble is that you're dealing with a lot of people here who are almost by definition control freaks. Ever seen a really creative type like Spielberg trying their darndest not to add "helpful hints"? It's pitiful; they start turning puce. In the end, they crack and offer advice. Which gets taken, because it usually sounds sensible, and after all, he's the boss.
Then the floodgates open. Once the iron rule of "no interference" has been broken, it's off to the races for the media-Borg of corporate suits who make their living by producing toxic horrible crap. And each one of them is an expert in appearing to have the authority to speak for Spielberg Himself. And so the project gets buried under a landslide of crap, and it all gets Disneyfied with a tie-in here, a cute stuffed toy there and everywhere an uplifting moral message.
If you ever wondered why a favourite band began to suck after a while, nine times out of ten this sort of thing is the reason why.
Slashdot Mirror
folks would be wanting to read this very fine text on the econ. of copyright, which msakes the same points as the article on copyright-as-monopoly, in a slightly more rigourous fashion.
jsm
Since Microsoft makes all of its money from patented software, it has opted into the system of coercion which is the basis of government, so your invoking of the concept of "initiation of force" is invalid. Microsoft benefits from a privilege granted by the government to impede the free use of information by others, so it cannot object to modifications of that (illegitimate) privilege.
And I've always thought that a definition of "initiation of force" whereby a black man sitting at a lunch counter can be taken to be "initiating force" is rather silly, and certainly a liability rather than an asset to the libertarian cause.
jsm
A couple of quotes from The Wealth of Mations, showing what Smith actually thought about the Invisible Hand in this type of case:
You are entirely entitled to your views on Microsoft and the government, but please don't try to claim that Smith shared them (I would also suggest that in supporting Microsoft, you are not perhaps as consistent a libertarian as you think you are).
jsm
Well, "Crusoe Debian Dreamcast Cinnabon" is an anagram of "Concessionaire adumbrate and NBC". The "concessionaire" is cleraly Linus, "adumbrate" is a reference to the number-crunching power of the Crusoe processor, but where does NBC fit in?
Well, let's see, NBC is owned by General Electric, which is a major competitor of Sega, who make the Dreamcast. Jack Welch, the CEO of GE is a known associate of Warren Buffet, who is thought to be a big fan of the Cinnabom [tm] breakfast roll.
It seems to me that the logo must be part of a secret code between Welch, Buffet and Stallman (probably all members of the Illuminati), to put the wind up Sega, and remind them not to stop putting Satanic symbols in the Sonic games.
fnord fnord fnord, etc.
jsm
the greatest waste of money since welfare
Just a friendly pointer -- it is remarks like that which tend to get you physics guys a bit of a reputation for arrogance.
jsm
first to AC:
/. reading Purdue alumni might a) alert the administrators that they might be alienating potential benefactors through their actions and b) would probably not get ttypo into too much trouble.
Although your point is probably valid, in that I didn't give much evidence of not being a chickenshit, I'm actually not one. Among the organisations and people with whom I've picked fights during a short but belligerent life are: the Inland Revenue (several times), the British Army, the Swiss Banking Commission and the Richardson family (S. London). I've looked into the barrel of a gun and talked my way out of it. As a community leader, I've stood face to face with a man who was later convicted for arranging the murder of three (fellow) drug dealers and told him he wasn't welcome in our estate. This isn't macho-talk, just a record of the things that happen to you if you're articulate, political and more than averagely cocky.
Of all the battles I've been in, however, the ones which left me worst bruised have been fought against educational institutions. You are wrong to assume that they will hold back from being vindictive; they correctly assume that they will get the best of the PR battle. Big universities can flunk you, throw you out, etc, etc and who are the newspapers going to believe? A prestigious institution of learning, or some guy who flunked college and claims that they have a vendetta against him? As soon as you take on the authority which rates people for credibility, you start to develop credibility problems of your own.
Second, to Mawbid:
I've done a lot more things that I regret than you have, for example; both sins of ommission and of commission. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that people should always stand up for what they believe in.
But I'd urge ttypo to consider whether this is really "something he believes in", or just something he wants. If it's the first, fight like a tiger. If it's the second, you need to weigh up the balance of advantages. As far as I can see, it's the second, and the balance of advantages says "give up and move on".
Many things are worth going to the wire for. Political views, loved ones, the truth. Possessions never are. And a domain name looks much more like a possession than anything else to me.
God, I never thought I was going to get so philosophical. I must care about this more than I thought.
jsm
PS On a practical note, I might suggest that a write-in protest by
AC's solution is the very best deal that you could reasonably hope to get out of this. You are entirely in the right, morally speaking, and probably legally speaking too. But (this is the important bit):
1. University administrators are nasty people. If you get in their way, they will be needlessly cruel to you.
2. Universities have a million and one ways to fsck you up, whether or not you win in court. This website is not worth your whole rest of life.
3. And you will always have a hard time getting any sort of support, because people will always believe their side of things -- when people don't understand the issues, they go by reputation, and Purdue has a better one than you do.
In general, I'd advise anyone to fight like a tiger if right is on their side. But educators are such vindictive sods that I'd make an exception. Your two options are:
1. Give 'em the name, but scorch the earth, destroy your site and let them deal with the user complaints. This will annoy them, but they'll have their name, and they won't be angry enough to hurt you.
2. Co-operate fully, as per AC's suggestion. This way, you have to swallow some crow, but keep your site and keep your users happy.
What I would not do is to organise any sort of student protest. This will frighten and humiliate the admins, and they will break you on a wheel in revenge.
Of course, all this is assuming that you have some sort of life which you would like to preserve. If you're keen on fighting it out to the death, go for it, and good luck to you!
either way, look on it as a learning experience . . .
jsm
close but no cigar ... in fact, the courts are well aware of the point you make and draft judgements accordingly. Anyone who tries to get round an antitrust judgement by "co-operating" between the split up companies will find himself right back in court, and this time the charge will be contempt.
Oh yeh, and companies exist to make money for their shareholders considered only as their shareholders. They're not allowed to take into account any other interests that their shareholders might have. Otherwise, with so much of the USA owned by pension funds (ie owned by workers), we might see something really strange -- what Peter Drucker calls "pension fund socialism"
jsm
ughhhhh [shudder]
jsm
I doubt that much of use will come out of this experiment. The element of auto-suggestion is too great. We all know that Kevin Warwick really really wants this experiment to work. So, they press the button, his arm moves -- who's to say that the signal really moved his arm? Unless he's prepared to hand over complete control to the machine, and effectively paralyse himself, I'd suggest that his arm moved because he moved it.
And then we have the element of training. It's known that you can train various muscles to react to stimuli, so if the chip starts working, it seems to me that it would be hard to argue from there to the conclusion that "the right signal" had been given, still less that a chip which worked in Kevin Warwick would be transferable to anyone else.
jsm
Very good points.
/. reader, I'd suggest that others do the same.
Speaking as someone who spends upwards of ten hours a day with my face held about nine inches from a VDU screen, I take quite an interest in what life is like for blind people.
Given the work and hobbies of the typical
jsm
I said the Constitution guarantees the right to private property
As far as I'm aware, this isn't true. Pretty much the only thing the Constitution says about private property is that you can be taxed on it. I'm talking about the American Constitution, of course; I have no knowledge of any other, so your mileage may vary.
jsm
some people take advantage of poorly-written laws to unfairly profit from ripping off others.
If this is your concern, then the Americans with Disabilities Act would be about the millionth priority on your list.
jsm
In RMS's opinion, less is more; he restricts your freedom to do whatever you want with his code
... this is only true if you count imposing a proprietary licence as "doing something". Personally, I have a problem with this; I always thought that ownership was not an activity.
Hmmmm
On the other hand, I'm a long-haired Marxist (as in, I've got long hair, and I'm a Marxist), so feel free to ignore me.
I tend to agree with you on the "battle of the licences" issue; to my way of thinking, RMS needs to be very careful to avoid the slide into nuthood.
jsm
fair enough, sorry.
jsm
To the tune of "This old man"
"We break up
We break down
We don't care if the school falls down
No more English, no more French
No more sitting on the old school bench
If that teacher interferes
Sit her down and box her ears
If that does not put her right
Blow here up with dynamite
Kick the tables
Kick the chairs
Kick the teacher down the stairs
If that does not shut her up
Dynamite will blow her up"
We were in Britain, you see, no guns. But still pretty violent.
jsm
"Troll"? A bit harsh, perhaps. The tell tale question-mark-instead-of-apostrophe is a mark brought in by use of microsoft products to edit HTML (specifically, the Microsoft "smartquote" is an incompatible character), and the "Demoroniser" is a program which strips these incompatbile characters out.
It's not my fault that the Demoroniser is called "The Demoroniser"!
jsm
"it seems like a year ago, a big ol? long year"
"ol?"? oh Jon, Jon, you were gaining such credibility, then you post something with the tell-tale stigmata of Microsoft.
Be a good lad and buzz it through the Demoronizer first. That way you'll get away with it.
cheers
jsm
hmmm ... the Masada, and the destruction of the Temple, fair enough. But the Masicure at York? I doubt you'd find one Jew in twenty who knows what the hell you're talking about.
I certainly don't.
jsm
PS, asking which communists I'm talking about it pretty numb -- communists are anti capitalism. And in the mid 1900's, the low moral values of North America in general were used as propaganda against capitalism.
The level of this debate can be pretty accurately ascertained by the fact that both interlocutors seem to be happy with assuming that abortion was not much more prevalent under communist governments -- in Russia it was the main means of contraception.
jsm
In 500 years I want people to remember exactly what the Nazi's did.
I don't think you have to be a Nazi, or a holocaust denier, or even a racist to profoundly hope the opposite. I don't think that any linguistic drift in what will be by then an obscure and more or less meaningless term will constitute any dilution of the condemnation that future historians will make of the Nazis.
jsm
options are not being accounted for in the P&L because they don't really fit there
respectfully disagree (the rest of this post is actually very good).
To paraphrase Warren Buffet:
If options aren't compensation, what are they?
If compensation isn't an expense, what is it?
And if an expense doesn't belong in the P&L, where in heaven's name does it belong?
jsm
Speaking as a man with three years' experience as a stock market regulator ...
/. was trying to "manipulate MS' share price" is equally brainless. What on earth does the price of MS have to do with andover.net's IPO? You seem to be labouring under the impression that the stock market is a zero-sum game.
You're full of it, mate, and a poor Anthony Elgindy wannabe to boot. Slashdot posted a link to a site with a critique of MS accounting policies, which critique adds nothing to information already in the public domain other than the word "fraud" (which it is cleary wrong to add). Slashdot have not libelled MS, nor have they done anything which might bring down the wrath of the SEC. In any case, the public statement provisions of the law relating to IPOs have definite exceptions for media outlets (Or should newspapers stop publishing news in the run up to the IPO?)
And finally, your accusation that
full of it, I reiterate, and you will get no thanks from the SEC for wasting their time.
jsm
These guys should check out http://www.expertsexchange.com
I thought that that was the site for people who wanted an "expert sex change"?
jsm
Blandness and Disneyfication is not what Spielberg & Co are paying $250m for.
Hyerk. The trouble is that, although they started out with good intentions, it all rather develops into a death by a thousand cuts. Nobody (or at least not so many people) buys something with the express intention of screwing it up. But the trouble is that you're dealing with a lot of people here who are almost by definition control freaks. Ever seen a really creative type like Spielberg trying their darndest not to add "helpful hints"? It's pitiful; they start turning puce. In the end, they crack and offer advice. Which gets taken, because it usually sounds sensible, and after all, he's the boss.
Then the floodgates open. Once the iron rule of "no interference" has been broken, it's off to the races for the media-Borg of corporate suits who make their living by producing toxic horrible crap. And each one of them is an expert in appearing to have the authority to speak for Spielberg Himself. And so the project gets buried under a landslide of crap, and it all gets Disneyfied with a tie-in here, a cute stuffed toy there and everywhere an uplifting moral message.
If you ever wondered why a favourite band began to suck after a while, nine times out of ten this sort of thing is the reason why.
jsm