Kind of reminds me of a similar thing I did to defeat an analagous countermeasure in Second Life. Basically, I tried to spoof another user and make it look like he made offensive remarks. In SL, you can create objects and give them arbitrary names, and have them talk. So, you can name them after other users and make it look like they're saying stuff that they're really not. What does SL do about this? Well, text from objects saying stuff is green, while text from humans saying stuff is white.
Well, I defeated that countermeasure just like you did there. Once I named the object after another player, the first thing I did was say:
"Omg guys guys, check this out! I can make my text green! This is so awesome! I totally didn't know you could change the color of your text. I'm just going to do this from now on!" (Of course I waited till he was afk.)
*Then* I went on and put words in his mouth.
Fortunately, I was ethical/felt guilty/was squealing with laughter at my genious so much that I almost immediately revealed what I had done. But, same concept, the systems are vulnerable just the same.
I don't think they're being anti-semantic when they say things like that, they're just saying that newish tag systems should be segregated off to a special "neighborhood" of Web, maybe marked with a special star or something, so that they can easily be deleted if they turn out to cause trouble.
Hm, looks about right. Dang, just goes to confirm my suspicions: Japan "out-Americas" America. If there were no America, it would be necessary for Japan to create one. (been listening to learn-Japanese audio CDs that give little "culture notes" as they go... well, until my car CD player broke)
I was unaware the Japanese incorporated high cost of gasoline into decisions to go to an arcade, given that their subway/train system doesn't suck there.
You also stated that people send radio transmissions for fun and not to be heard,
You misunderstood that post. I was pointing out that there is a distinction in the kinds of scarcity that exist in the EM spectrum. I'll repeat the point here, hopefully in a way you will understand.
1) People say IP shouldn't be property because infinite people can use it. 2) I say that implies radio frequencies shouldn't be ownable (i.e. no one should have the exclusive right to transmit at a given frequency) because infinite people can use them, in the sense of throwing off radio waves. Since their reasoning implies something they disagree with, it is therefore false.
This is probably where your confusion arose. I simply pointed out the theoretical possibility of people who make radio waves with no intention of communicating information (perhaps because of a religious belief), shows that there is an analagous non-scarcity in the EM spectrum (see below).
3) They respond, "oh no, merely throwing off radio waves isn't *really* using that frequency; only when you communicate information does it count as 'really' using the frequency, and you can only do that when you have exclusive rights". 4) I then say, okay, why isn't it also only "really" using the idea space if you get exlusive rights to an idea you discover in it and use first? I mean, exclusive rights to a frequency adds one useful benefit to the transmitter (the fact that information can be conveyed), and that supposedly justifies establishing rights that way. But then, exclusive rights to an idea also adds a useful benefit. Why doesn't that useful benefit also justify rights in the "idea space"?
That is the argument I'm making.
and repeatedly insult people's intelligence if they don't believe in software patents/copyright laws, stating that they aren't intelligent enough to understand.
Yes, when a specific individual fails to understand a simple point well enough to articulate what is wrong with that point, and does so repeatedly, I do consider that person stupid. I don't think this holds for all anti-IP people, but in my experience, everyone I've argued with, is that stupid. Want to avoid the label? Understand the point.
I really need to make a website debunking all these arguments.
I really, really, don't mean to do any of this to justify IP. I just think that most arguments against IP are ridiculous. I want to find truth. That means trashing all sloppy, self-serving arguments advanced on either side, and that is what I do. Want to make me really happy? Make a non-crappy blanket argument against IP. Every existing one has failed.
You know, "wah wah!" Take one look at my posting history and see if I deserve that. All those flamebaits and over-rateds. Did I deserve them? Hell no. Your troubles are piddling in comparison.
To add to the fray with my critique of your list. (I don't get to post much now that the internet hate machine is modding down everything I post for no reason at all, yes, check my history.)
First, a note: when making a wish list, you need to phrase your wish to the highest level of generality, which you haven't done in several cases.
* Flying car -- You actually want cheap quick transportation, or cheap personal air travel. Otherwise, I agree. * Cheap Nuclear Power -- Already exists, just political restrictions. * Safe, Effective Diet Pill -- You actually want either 1) no desires to eat yummy food, or 2) painless removal of junk from your body, or 3) severe impedances to eating what you don't need. 1) Would change who your are; 2) can be achieved with quick, easy liposuction, which is in the realm of possibility. 3) exists, since you didn't specify costs: hire people near you to physically keep you away from food. * Cheap TV Phone (nevermind, I don't look so hot in the morning). -- Got a computer? Got high-speed? Got $60 to buy a camera? Download skype for free and vidchat. Already got my mommy set up and talk to her that way regularly. * Space Travel for the Mass -- Space travel is great, but why just for mass?;-) * Cure for Cancer -- Agree. * Cure for the Common Cold -- The reason why this doesn't exist IIRC is that basically, it's just an annoyance. Any medicinal cure for anything will introduce side effects, usually about as annoying as a common cold. Therefore, they can only currently cure this by giving you something just as bad. "The cure is worse than the disease." * Artificial Intelligence approaching at least Dog Level * Appliances that Accept Voice Commands -- agree, agree * Independence from Oil -- Already possible with no infrastructural changes. See the cheap nuclear power? It's effectively unlimited. Now, reverse the combustion reaction (yes, it's possible if you create the right environmental conditions) and draw CO2 and H2O from the air to make octane (and fence the O2). Now, we don't need to import oil, automobile fuel is carbon neutral (it only releases that which was taken from the atmosphere to begin with), and no one needs to do anything differently. Barriers? Political, again. * 3D User Interface -- How about just a *good* interface? 3D has nothing to do with it. * Cybernetic Implants -- agree * Energy-beam Weapons -- why? * Easy-to-Maintain Personal Computers -- agree * Car Key Alternative - I hate looking for lost keys. -- you mean car starts that don't require a physical object? Already possible with key-code-launched cars. * Non-Lethal Weaponry for Cops -- already exists in the form of taser. What you want is something that restrains but can never kill. Physically impossible. What you should instead state is a level of risk of a weapon, that can still do the job, that you want cops to use, and tasers are very close to that. * Reliable Tires (or that fail gradually) - Tires are still based on air-filled balloon technology, making them problematic. -- exist, but could be more common * Reliable Car Battery -- Again, your goal is a combination of what you want on the flying car, and what you want for energy. The nuclear-produced octance I think solves your ultimate goal on this. * Scan & Download Brain to Cheat Death -- As with the others, I don't think embedding your brain digitally would stop *you*, as *you* experience consciousness, from dying. Probably want instead a brain implant that keeps your brain clinically alive, and also supplements your brain's functions.
I know that Obama support is overstated when looking at the internet, but he may actually be the best democratic candidate. His health care plan is miles ahead of Clinton (see entire economic profession except for Krugman) and he won the South and Illinois yesterday, which matters a lot for the general election. My own opinion about Clinton is that Rush was right, she is evil. People don't seem to support her because of issues or anything like that, they support her because she's the magical woman candidate. It's almost straight out of Shawshank Redemption or the Shining. Sure, she distinguishes herself by being behind most of the former Pres. Clinton's policies, but Obama has a retty good record on Iraq for the past several years, which does matter.
*crosses fingers and hopes this will revive my karma...*
I didn't know whether I should post this to you or to the responder Valdrax, who also made important points, but it should apply to both.
Here's my attempt to untangle the issue:
1) Ron Paul supports 100% free trade. 2) NAFTA and WTO are not 100% free trade. 3) NAFTA and WTO are attempts to work, imperfectly, toward free trade. 4) Ron Paul, to my consternation, does not see the changes introduced toward free trade by NAFTA and WTO, as good enough to outweigh their pro-governmental aspects (which apparently include ceding sovereignty to international organizations and some other more esoteric reasons). 5) In my opinion, opposing NAFTA and WTO, given all they've done to bring about free trade, is very questionable if you support free trade, amounting to "anything that doesn't give me everything I want is bad". 6) Ron Paul's nuanced position allows him to say, basically, "Hey, protectionists, vote for me! NAFTA sucks [because its not free-trade-ish *enough*]!" 7) Disclaimer: I support and organize for Ron Paul despite all of the above.
Wow, I guess Ron Paul really *is* a politician-type, because I *also* thought his answers were clear, but interpreted them almost the opposite of you!
Beyond that, it's not our business to try to interfere with other countries' efforts to build a space infrastructure. We ought to try to improve our own, of course
Sorry, I read his answer as saying that we shouldn't have a space program, except perhaps insofar as space will be a military attack vector.
"America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program."
I saw "worry more" as "reconsider", i.e., "think about our national security and decide whether a space program works toward that". I mean, that would be consistent with his life-long opposition to federal programs not in the Constitution.
Note the sheepish follow-up of, hey, but don't worry -- "I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight." i.e. so you geeks can put up with NASA's defunding a lot easier.
Disclaimer: I am a long-time libertarian, and short-time local Ron Paul organizer.
While you should know I'm no fan of Hillary, let's keep this in context: If we don't garnish the wages of the uninsured, we will garnish everyone else's when they go in for emergency care and (predictably) stiff the hospital.[1] Or, we can seize the assets of/enslave people who show up and can never provide proof of insurance (i.e. once stabilized and recognized by family).
So, to review, the known options are:
a)Force people to buy insurance on penalty of imprisonment. b)Force people to buy insurance on penalty of wage garnishment, applied to an insurance policy for them. c)National health care. d)Tax everyone to pay for emergency care for uninsured. e)Ravish those who are uninsured and need emergency care. f)Check all for ability to pay on emergency admittance, and refuse those without immediate proof.
(What about making those dastardly employers buy it for you? Sorry, economically equivalent to b.)
While b) might not be the best, it's far from the worst, and probably better than the haphazard combo of c, d, and e that we currently have.
So, don't tell me, "Hillary is evil because she supports b)." Tell me, "Hillary is evil because she supports b) instead of the OBVIOUSLY better policy X."
[1] And the results of that, I have discovered, is that if you go in with a near-useless writing arm, you will get a demand every thirty seconds to fill out a form. Yes, I'm exaggerating. Slightly.
Isn't the point of insider trading to *make* money, and make it *easily* and predictably? Losing 7.2 billion dollars isn't supposed to happen when you have insider knowledge (until you get hit with fines...).
It's like you're saying he stole the keys to cars at a dealership, and impersonated sales staff there... and then sold some customers the cars, cooked the books to make it look legit, and left the car dealership with all the money.
While I can't comment on the specifics, the evidence simply does not support the conclusions.
About half of the $800 million figure consists of "opportunity costs", the money that would have been made if the R&D funds had been invested in equities, in effect a presumed profit built in and compounded every year and then called a "cost." Drug companies then expect to make a profit on this compounded profit, as well as on their actual costs
And that accounting practice is richly justified (no pun intended). Once you accept that the private sector can do parts of the process that universities and government can't, you have to accept that market forces "should" be powerful enough to persuade these private sector people to do this in preference to some alternative.
In other words, their return must be higher than what the investors could get just from taking on the less-risky general stock market. And then, they have to be compensated for the risk that their profits won't actually be higher. So it makes perfect sense to use that as a baseline for judging the merit of a private investment in pharmaceuticals.
Second of all: any claims about rates of profits derived from looking at actually-existing pharmaceuticals will necessarily be higher than reality, because of the extreme survivorship bias issue. Those numbers will not account for all the ventures that started, and lost EVERYTHING, before a bigger one could buy their research, and even before they could get listed on an exchange.
Third:
The $800 million figure is based on the small unrepresentative subsample of all new drugs.... To make a fundamental claim about proper pharma policies which hinges on a new drug costing $X vs. $Y for all time, is a serious category error. Drug development costs *necessarily* increase over time, for the simple reason that researchers (and entrepreneurs in general) target the lowest-hanging fruit first. As the easy ones get snapped up, later ones are harder and will cost more. This confines any probative value of your argument to the time period up to when drug costs are "really" $Y, and thus leaves you empty of policy ideas for who to blame at that time.
It's true, as you mentioned, that some search methods get cheaper over time. But widen your scope. The *level of insight* necessary to get a new drug, and its non-obviousness, will still increase over time. The faster specialized searches simply mean insights derived from that kind of exhaustive search will be flushed out sooner. What to do afterward? Well, we need smarter people...
Finally, the real hole in all of the claims you have cited is: if you really know that pharmas make risk-adjusted superprofits, where are all the competitors coming in to steal all these profits?
Please be so kind and show me where I said it was trivial. What I said (and in fact what I repeated again) is that while they do finance some parts of drug development, they finance a smaller part than does the federal government. (And in fact the research they do perform is also subsidized by tax breaks.)
Okay: see your entire original first post. The claim was that pharmas provide only part of the resources, and get back a disproportionately large amount, which you deem to be "too much". Oh, you're not one of *those* people that don't understand the role of profits and even high profits as promoting the public good. You just deem *these* profits to be too much.
But like I said, this is refuted in how, if they really are getting overpaid, a competitor would be glad to step in. So far, no takers. That suggests to me that you are underrating the difficulty and importance of what pharmas do. Now, if you believe there's something keeping competitors from bleeding out these unfair superprofits, that would be a valid point. But it would also be a completely different point from the one you did make.
Duh. Because it works. (Quite well actually.) That's why I have since residency
Yes, very good. First of all, let me congratulate your on your ethics. I really mean that. It is very virtuous of you not to let your judgment be clouded by what are essentially bribes, and basing your treatment on medical merit alone.
HOWEVER, at the same time, you should not take your behavior, which is an extreme statistical outlier, and let it represent all of doctors, for whom you *agree* that these practices work quite well. What you're failing to do is take this fact and recognizing that the blame for the problem does in fact fall on the protected class known as doctors. It's very tempting to twist facts to fit your worldview, that it's OMG the evil big corporations. That's wrong. It's at least partly doctors who aren't doing their jobs.
In my case, read the NEMJ weekly, occasional reviews in other good journals, cochrane,
Okay, again, great. If you regularly update your old knowledge with this knew information, apply all the necessary Bayesian statistical filters to incoming knowledge, temper your personal "hunches" with a good review of the literature, and on top of that, advocate auditing of doctor errors to better inform future treatment, I contratulate you for that. But it's not how most doctors make their decisions! And like I said above, it is part of the problem, just as surely as pharma "greed".
I also encourage people to ask questions... But let me give you a little piece of free advice. If you go in to see a physician (or any person-person interaction) without that chip on your shoulder the size of Wisconsin, you might get a better response.
hehe, good point, but I can promise you I don't take that attitude, and do my damnedest to be polite. My comment was in reference to the other/. posts by doctors who have basically implied that I'm a terrorist for doing my own research and bouncing it off the doctor to get good treatment. At the same time, when I see what is basically malpractice or stupidity, I'm going to point it out. Let me give you some examples:
-I have had severe back pain for the last ~10 years, starting at about age 16 (!). It basically makes it so that I can't do much at all to enjoy life. Standing or sitting for more than ~5 minutes will give me a severe pain in my lower bakc, but the pain happens all over the back and into my hips, randomly, at various times. Hang out with friends? Pain acts up so much that I can't think straight. I can handle a desk job, as long as I can get up and walk around every few minutes.
I have seen about 12 different doctors about it over that span. TWELVE! *probably* enough to weed out the possibility of a bad apple. And yes, on high-grade insurance. They tried all kinds of things, and
-Google holds a lot of cash. -Google could easily raise cash by issuing new shares or "Gbonds" at favorable prices. -Having the spectrum allows Google to do an end-run around net neutrality violators. -Having a non-evil company own the spectrum would allow American cell phones to catch up with the rest of the world: No nickel-and-dime-ing on everything you want to add to your cell phone (like ring tones), compatibility with ATMs, cheap internet access anywhere, etc.
Actually, the answer were looking for was, "because it's *not* the trivial step that you claim it is". Yes, the scientific side, not just the business side of what pharmas do. And if they were making an "unfairly" large amount from their contribution, someone else would gladly take their place.
Incidentally, why don't you spend some of your time providing the more expensive pharmaceutical work for free instead of the less expensive work that you currently do for free? I mean, since you're so indignant about their returns and all...
Here's a bonus question to redeem yourself: Why do you think pharmas give free pizza to physicians? (Hint: how do 100% objective, licensed, certified, don't-you-fucking-ever-question doctors make health care decisions for patients?)
Now, explain for me, just briefly, why the universities don't do that last step themselves? I mean, if it's so easy and would generate for them superprofits...?
I appreciate your articulate response but disagree on a few points.
Is consistency necessary? Is it ideal?
Yes, and yes, obviously. If you say, "X is wrong because of principle Y" and then it turns out that Y implies Z, and you reject Z, you must revise Y, accept Z, or accept the invalidity of your argument against X. It's that simple.
I support the concept of copyright simply because...
So, you're a rule utilitarian. I largely agree with that stance, but it's beyond the scope of the point I'm making here.
But copyright is sui generis. The closest that it comes to property law is that a copyright itself (as opposed to the creative work the copyright governs, or copies in which that work is embodied) could be considered a piece of property; I don't think it is, but an honest argument can be made.
Ownership of a physical object *is*, by definition, ownership of a bundle of rights (and people disagree on what rights that should include) that have that object as a referent. Ownership of a copyright is, just the same, ownership of a bundle of rights with -- yep -- physical objects as referents. In this respect, it is undebatable that they are the same.
References to property in conjunction with copyright strike me as inevitably being misleading (often deliberately so). They're usually an attempt to get us to think emotionally, rather than rationally, and to apply norms from an unrelated field (real and personal property) which are not appropriate in the copyright domain.
No, they're not misleading, or deliberately misleading. People talk about copyright as property because each and every honest, intelligent person who has ever approached the issue, has, without anyone's prodding, seen stark parallels. Specifically, *exclusion rights* over a sphere of activity attach when someone brings something useful into the domain of human action (i.e. homesteading an object or instantiating a new idea). The exclusion rights can then be transferred. Those are very strong parallels. They only differ in how they specify the referents.
(And of course, those norms are often at odds with property law too -- look at all the bizarre ado over the Kelo case a few years back)
Why does it matter whether a) peoples' opinions about how the law *should be* given a set of axioms, conflicts with b) currently existing property law.
FWIW, eminent domain is -- yes -- expropriation of a bundle of rights, and can and has happened just the same with IP -- cf. humanitarian patent-breaking.
I suppose that there is consistency in that copyright law is utilitarian, and property law is also utilitarian, and the regulation of the airwaves is also utilitarian....
Again, it's great to talk about how rule utilitarianism can provide a good framework for dealing with all those issues, but it's tangential here. The topic here is whether it's possible to consistently distinguish IP from other forms of property (and thus treat it differently) on the grounds that it "doesn't have natural limits", and I believe I have shown that *that approach* is invalid.
I don't know if you're the original responder and intended to post AC or what, but regardless:
The point of a broadcast is to be heard, not merely to send EM waves into the stratosphere for fun.
Says who? Again, arbitrary, arbitrary. Why does the fact that some people like using the EM spectrum to transmit information, justify their right in it? What if some people do in fact like blasting radio waves, irrespective of information transmission (perhaps because of a religious belief)?
Many people using it at the same time to transmit information (hint: the whole POINT of a license) interfere with each other. Read up on Shannon's law
Yes, I'm familiar with that, genius. The fact that they interfere was the basis for my point about the original poster's in consistency.
The rivalrousness is inherent,
Yeah, rivalrousness is inherent in transmitting information through the EM spectrum. Just as it's inherent in the "exclusive legal right to publish intellectual work X". That was the point.
The notion of a right was created to address the inherent harm, the right wasn't created to CAUSE some harm to the property holder!
And you reveal the circularity of your argument!
you: I believe some property rights should exist. IP is not one of them, because there's no natural limit on copying an intellectual work. me: So would you say EM spectrum rights are invalid because there's no natural limit on how many people can create radio waves? you: No, the RELEVANT USE of the EM spectrum is to transmit information, and THAT is scarce. me: And the RELEVANT USE of the idea-space is to create intellectual works over which you have some control against copying by others. you: No, because that violates others' property rights. me: *falls out of chair*
See also this post by the guy who made Gmail on what it means to own a right.
Hm, not sure why you linked to him, since:
-He supports "imaginary property". -His whole post was just a semantic point that the label "stealing" should go to one kind of rights violation but not another.
So now you know why I don't believe in imaginary property.
No, I just know why you can't understand a simple point: you cannot consistently oppose IP but support spectrum rights on the grounds that there is scarcity in one and not the other.
Well, I know of one robot that gives directions, and one superiority of her is that she appropriately follows company sexual harassment policy when you grope her robotic breasts.
That's not the point. The issue is that actual property does have characteristics that "intellectual property" doesn't. Oh, it is the point, I was showing how on an apples-to-apples comparison, they are equal. Both rights are intangible; both have physical ("real") referents.
. Actual property is limited, while copyright and patents are unlimited. Thus, all the constructs around property can't be applied to them. Well, for one thing, people who assert (totally valid and real!) physical property rights, assert them far beyond their limits. For example people who claim ownership of a cornfield kick out people who sleep in it, even though this doesn't limit their intended use for it. It's inconsistent to ground property rights in "inherent natural limits" while granting them far in excess of what nature imposes. Please see my other response on this issue, where I show how purported distinctions fall apart on closer examination.
This is not to say I agree with all of what IP proponents say -- I just think the issue is more complicated than the anti-IP side wants us to believe.
(Prediction: based on past threads, the mere fact that I am arguing against an anti-IP arguments means I *may* get one net upmod, while everyone else will get modded up regardless of their argument's merit.)
The analogy with the spectrum is flawed. There are physical, measurable reasons why transmitting in the same frequency affects others ability to do the same. Nope. Others can *transmit* just fine. Those radio waves? Yep, they sure got blasted into the air. They may be superposed with others, but they absolutely got transmitted.
Airwaves are indeed a finite spectrum, by human standards. Copyrighted works don't have the same issues. Copying other people works can affect their bussiness model, but not their physical ability to publish and distribute. Nope, again, infinite people can send waves. Oh, yeah, I'm sure if you're one of those morons whose business model TOTALLY relies on other people being good perfect little obedient citizens and not exercising their natural right to use nature-given resources like the EM spectrum, then sure, you may not like people sending those waves. But that "dislike" ain't a basis for rights.
So why does "a desire to use the EM spectrum to transmit information" justify cordoning off rights in frequencies, while "a desire to exlusively publish an intellectual work" doesn't justify cordoning off rights in expression patterns? Arbitrary, arbitrary.
Good luck finding a scarcity distinction in IP that doesn't work against a property right you currently support. Hint: there is none.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of reminds me of a similar thing I did to defeat an analagous countermeasure in Second Life. Basically, I tried to spoof another user and make it look like he made offensive remarks. In SL, you can create objects and give them arbitrary names, and have them talk. So, you can name them after other users and make it look like they're saying stuff that they're really not. What does SL do about this? Well, text from objects saying stuff is green, while text from humans saying stuff is white.
Well, I defeated that countermeasure just like you did there. Once I named the object after another player, the first thing I did was say:
"Omg guys guys, check this out! I can make my text green! This is so awesome! I totally didn't know you could change the color of your text. I'm just going to do this from now on!" (Of course I waited till he was afk.)
*Then* I went on and put words in his mouth.
Fortunately, I was ethical/felt guilty/was squealing with laughter at my genious so much that I almost immediately revealed what I had done. But, same concept, the systems are vulnerable just the same.
*fighting urge not to say it...*
I don't think they're being anti-semantic when they say things like that, they're just saying that newish tag systems should be segregated off to a special "neighborhood" of Web, maybe marked with a special star or something, so that they can easily be deleted if they turn out to cause trouble.
(Admit it, you smirked...)
Hm, looks about right. Dang, just goes to confirm my suspicions: Japan "out-Americas" America. If there were no America, it would be necessary for Japan to create one. (been listening to learn-Japanese audio CDs that give little "culture notes" as they go ... well, until my car CD player broke)
I was unaware the Japanese incorporated high cost of gasoline into decisions to go to an arcade, given that their subway/train system doesn't suck there.
You also stated that people send radio transmissions for fun and not to be heard,
You misunderstood that post. I was pointing out that there is a distinction in the kinds of scarcity that exist in the EM spectrum. I'll repeat the point here, hopefully in a way you will understand.
1) People say IP shouldn't be property because infinite people can use it.
2) I say that implies radio frequencies shouldn't be ownable (i.e. no one should have the exclusive right to transmit at a given frequency) because infinite people can use them, in the sense of throwing off radio waves. Since their reasoning implies something they disagree with, it is therefore false.
This is probably where your confusion arose. I simply pointed out the theoretical possibility of people who make radio waves with no intention of communicating information (perhaps because of a religious belief), shows that there is an analagous non-scarcity in the EM spectrum (see below).
3) They respond, "oh no, merely throwing off radio waves isn't *really* using that frequency; only when you communicate information does it count as 'really' using the frequency, and you can only do that when you have exclusive rights".
4) I then say, okay, why isn't it also only "really" using the idea space if you get exlusive rights to an idea you discover in it and use first? I mean, exclusive rights to a frequency adds one useful benefit to the transmitter (the fact that information can be conveyed), and that supposedly justifies establishing rights that way. But then, exclusive rights to an idea also adds a useful benefit. Why doesn't that useful benefit also justify rights in the "idea space"?
That is the argument I'm making.
and repeatedly insult people's intelligence if they don't believe in software patents/copyright laws, stating that they aren't intelligent enough to understand.
Yes, when a specific individual fails to understand a simple point well enough to articulate what is wrong with that point, and does so repeatedly, I do consider that person stupid. I don't think this holds for all anti-IP people, but in my experience, everyone I've argued with, is that stupid. Want to avoid the label? Understand the point.
I really need to make a website debunking all these arguments.
I really, really, don't mean to do any of this to justify IP. I just think that most arguments against IP are ridiculous. I want to find truth. That means trashing all sloppy, self-serving arguments advanced on either side, and that is what I do. Want to make me really happy? Make a non-crappy blanket argument against IP. Every existing one has failed.
You know, "wah wah!" Take one look at my posting history and see if I deserve that. All those flamebaits and over-rateds. Did I deserve them? Hell no. Your troubles are piddling in comparison.
To add to the fray with my critique of your list. (I don't get to post much now that the internet hate machine is modding down everything I post for no reason at all, yes, check my history.)
;-)
First, a note: when making a wish list, you need to phrase your wish to the highest level of generality, which you haven't done in several cases.
* Flying car -- You actually want cheap quick transportation, or cheap personal air travel. Otherwise, I agree.
* Cheap Nuclear Power -- Already exists, just political restrictions.
* Safe, Effective Diet Pill -- You actually want either 1) no desires to eat yummy food, or 2) painless removal of junk from your body, or 3) severe impedances to eating what you don't need. 1) Would change who your are; 2) can be achieved with quick, easy liposuction, which is in the realm of possibility. 3) exists, since you didn't specify costs: hire people near you to physically keep you away from food.
* Cheap TV Phone (nevermind, I don't look so hot in the morning). -- Got a computer? Got high-speed? Got $60 to buy a camera? Download skype for free and vidchat. Already got my mommy set up and talk to her that way regularly.
* Space Travel for the Mass -- Space travel is great, but why just for mass?
* Cure for Cancer -- Agree.
* Cure for the Common Cold -- The reason why this doesn't exist IIRC is that basically, it's just an annoyance. Any medicinal cure for anything will introduce side effects, usually about as annoying as a common cold. Therefore, they can only currently cure this by giving you something just as bad. "The cure is worse than the disease."
* Artificial Intelligence approaching at least Dog Level
* Appliances that Accept Voice Commands -- agree, agree
* Independence from Oil -- Already possible with no infrastructural changes. See the cheap nuclear power? It's effectively unlimited. Now, reverse the combustion reaction (yes, it's possible if you create the right environmental conditions) and draw CO2 and H2O from the air to make octane (and fence the O2). Now, we don't need to import oil, automobile fuel is carbon neutral (it only releases that which was taken from the atmosphere to begin with), and no one needs to do anything differently. Barriers? Political, again.
* 3D User Interface -- How about just a *good* interface? 3D has nothing to do with it.
* Cybernetic Implants -- agree
* Energy-beam Weapons -- why?
* Easy-to-Maintain Personal Computers -- agree
* Car Key Alternative - I hate looking for lost keys. -- you mean car starts that don't require a physical object? Already possible with key-code-launched cars.
* Non-Lethal Weaponry for Cops -- already exists in the form of taser. What you want is something that restrains but can never kill. Physically impossible. What you should instead state is a level of risk of a weapon, that can still do the job, that you want cops to use, and tasers are very close to that.
* Reliable Tires (or that fail gradually) - Tires are still based on air-filled balloon technology, making them problematic. -- exist, but could be more common
* Reliable Car Battery -- Again, your goal is a combination of what you want on the flying car, and what you want for energy. The nuclear-produced octance I think solves your ultimate goal on this.
* Scan & Download Brain to Cheat Death -- As with the others, I don't think embedding your brain digitally would stop *you*, as *you* experience consciousness, from dying. Probably want instead a brain implant that keeps your brain clinically alive, and also supplements your brain's functions.
Actually, I think it has more to do with how half the children that predators meet online, turn out to be Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC.
I know that Obama support is overstated when looking at the internet, but he may actually be the best democratic candidate. His health care plan is miles ahead of Clinton (see entire economic profession except for Krugman) and he won the South and Illinois yesterday, which matters a lot for the general election. My own opinion about Clinton is that Rush was right, she is evil. People don't seem to support her because of issues or anything like that, they support her because she's the magical woman candidate. It's almost straight out of Shawshank Redemption or the Shining. Sure, she distinguishes herself by being behind most of the former Pres. Clinton's policies, but Obama has a retty good record on Iraq for the past several years, which does matter.
*crosses fingers and hopes this will revive my karma...*
I didn't know whether I should post this to you or to the responder Valdrax, who also made important points, but it should apply to both.
Here's my attempt to untangle the issue:
1) Ron Paul supports 100% free trade.
2) NAFTA and WTO are not 100% free trade.
3) NAFTA and WTO are attempts to work, imperfectly, toward free trade.
4) Ron Paul, to my consternation, does not see the changes introduced toward free trade by NAFTA and WTO, as good enough to outweigh their pro-governmental aspects (which apparently include ceding sovereignty to international organizations and some other more esoteric reasons).
5) In my opinion, opposing NAFTA and WTO, given all they've done to bring about free trade, is very questionable if you support free trade, amounting to "anything that doesn't give me everything I want is bad".
6) Ron Paul's nuanced position allows him to say, basically, "Hey, protectionists, vote for me! NAFTA sucks [because its not free-trade-ish *enough*]!"
7) Disclaimer: I support and organize for Ron Paul despite all of the above.
Wow, I guess Ron Paul really *is* a politician-type, because I *also* thought his answers were clear, but interpreted them almost the opposite of you!
Beyond that, it's not our business to try to interfere with other countries' efforts to build a space infrastructure. We ought to try to improve our own, of course
Sorry, I read his answer as saying that we shouldn't have a space program, except perhaps insofar as space will be a military attack vector.
"America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program."
I saw "worry more" as "reconsider", i.e., "think about our national security and decide whether a space program works toward that". I mean, that would be consistent with his life-long opposition to federal programs not in the Constitution.
Note the sheepish follow-up of, hey, but don't worry -- "I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight." i.e. so you geeks can put up with NASA's defunding a lot easier.
Disclaimer: I am a long-time libertarian, and short-time local Ron Paul organizer.
While you should know I'm no fan of Hillary, let's keep this in context: If we don't garnish the wages of the uninsured, we will garnish everyone else's when they go in for emergency care and (predictably) stiff the hospital.[1] Or, we can seize the assets of/enslave people who show up and can never provide proof of insurance (i.e. once stabilized and recognized by family).
So, to review, the known options are:
a)Force people to buy insurance on penalty of imprisonment.
b)Force people to buy insurance on penalty of wage garnishment, applied to an insurance policy for them.
c)National health care.
d)Tax everyone to pay for emergency care for uninsured.
e)Ravish those who are uninsured and need emergency care.
f)Check all for ability to pay on emergency admittance, and refuse those without immediate proof.
(What about making those dastardly employers buy it for you? Sorry, economically equivalent to b.)
While b) might not be the best, it's far from the worst, and probably better than the haphazard combo of c, d, and e that we currently have.
So, don't tell me, "Hillary is evil because she supports b)." Tell me, "Hillary is evil because she supports b) instead of the OBVIOUSLY better policy X."
[1] And the results of that, I have discovered, is that if you go in with a near-useless writing arm, you will get a demand every thirty seconds to fill out a form. Yes, I'm exaggerating. Slightly.
Isn't the point of insider trading to *make* money, and make it *easily* and predictably? Losing 7.2 billion dollars isn't supposed to happen when you have insider knowledge (until you get hit with fines...).
... and then sold some customers the cars, cooked the books to make it look legit, and left the car dealership with all the money.
It's like you're saying he stole the keys to cars at a dealership, and impersonated sales staff there
About half of the $800 million figure consists of "opportunity costs", the money that would have been made if the R&D funds had been invested in equities, in effect a presumed profit built in and compounded every year and then called a "cost." Drug companies then expect to make a profit on this compounded profit, as well as on their actual costs
And that accounting practice is richly justified (no pun intended). Once you accept that the private sector can do parts of the process that universities and government can't, you have to accept that market forces "should" be powerful enough to persuade these private sector people to do this in preference to some alternative.
In other words, their return must be higher than what the investors could get just from taking on the less-risky general stock market. And then, they have to be compensated for the risk that their profits won't actually be higher. So it makes perfect sense to use that as a baseline for judging the merit of a private investment in pharmaceuticals.
Second of all: any claims about rates of profits derived from looking at actually-existing pharmaceuticals will necessarily be higher than reality, because of the extreme survivorship bias issue. Those numbers will not account for all the ventures that started, and lost EVERYTHING, before a bigger one could buy their research, and even before they could get listed on an exchange.
Third: The $800 million figure is based on the small unrepresentative subsample of all new drugs.
It's true, as you mentioned, that some search methods get cheaper over time. But widen your scope. The *level of insight* necessary to get a new drug, and its non-obviousness, will still increase over time. The faster specialized searches simply mean insights derived from that kind of exhaustive search will be flushed out sooner. What to do afterward? Well, we need smarter people...
Finally, the real hole in all of the claims you have cited is: if you really know that pharmas make risk-adjusted superprofits, where are all the competitors coming in to steal all these profits?
Please be so kind and show me where I said it was trivial. What I said (and in fact what I repeated again) is that while they do finance some parts of drug development, they finance a smaller part than does the federal government. (And in fact the research they do perform is also subsidized by tax breaks.)
Okay: see your entire original first post. The claim was that pharmas provide only part of the resources, and get back a disproportionately large amount, which you deem to be "too much". Oh, you're not one of *those* people that don't understand the role of profits and even high profits as promoting the public good. You just deem *these* profits to be too much.
But like I said, this is refuted in how, if they really are getting overpaid, a competitor would be glad to step in. So far, no takers. That suggests to me that you are underrating the difficulty and importance of what pharmas do. Now, if you believe there's something keeping competitors from bleeding out these unfair superprofits, that would be a valid point. But it would also be a completely different point from the one you did make.
Duh. Because it works. (Quite well actually.) That's why I have since residency
Yes, very good. First of all, let me congratulate your on your ethics. I really mean that. It is very virtuous of you not to let your judgment be clouded by what are essentially bribes, and basing your treatment on medical merit alone.
HOWEVER, at the same time, you should not take your behavior, which is an extreme statistical outlier, and let it represent all of doctors, for whom you *agree* that these practices work quite well. What you're failing to do is take this fact and recognizing that the blame for the problem does in fact fall on the protected class known as doctors. It's very tempting to twist facts to fit your worldview, that it's OMG the evil big corporations. That's wrong. It's at least partly doctors who aren't doing their jobs.
In my case, read the NEMJ weekly, occasional reviews in other good journals, cochrane,
Okay, again, great. If you regularly update your old knowledge with this knew information, apply all the necessary Bayesian statistical filters to incoming knowledge, temper your personal "hunches" with a good review of the literature, and on top of that, advocate auditing of doctor errors to better inform future treatment, I contratulate you for that. But it's not how most doctors make their decisions! And like I said above, it is part of the problem, just as surely as pharma "greed".
I also encourage people to ask questions ... But let me give you a little piece of free advice. If you go in to see a physician (or any person-person interaction) without that chip on your shoulder the size of Wisconsin, you might get a better response.
hehe, good point, but I can promise you I don't take that attitude, and do my damnedest to be polite. My comment was in reference to the other /. posts by doctors who have basically implied that I'm a terrorist for doing my own research and bouncing it off the doctor to get good treatment. At the same time, when I see what is basically malpractice or stupidity, I'm going to point it out. Let me give you some examples:
-I have had severe back pain for the last ~10 years, starting at about age 16 (!). It basically makes it so that I can't do much at all to enjoy life. Standing or sitting for more than ~5 minutes will give me a severe pain in my lower bakc, but the pain happens all over the back and into my hips, randomly, at various times. Hang out with friends? Pain acts up so much that I can't think straight. I can handle a desk job, as long as I can get up and walk around every few minutes.
I have seen about 12 different doctors about it over that span. TWELVE! *probably* enough to weed out the possibility of a bad apple. And yes, on high-grade insurance. They tried all kinds of things, and
Correct me if I'm wrong, but
-Google holds a lot of cash.
-Google could easily raise cash by issuing new shares or "Gbonds" at favorable prices.
-Having the spectrum allows Google to do an end-run around net neutrality violators.
-Having a non-evil company own the spectrum would allow American cell phones to catch up with the rest of the world: No nickel-and-dime-ing on everything you want to add to your cell phone (like ring tones), compatibility with ATMs, cheap internet access anywhere, etc.
Actually, the answer were looking for was, "because it's *not* the trivial step that you claim it is". Yes, the scientific side, not just the business side of what pharmas do. And if they were making an "unfairly" large amount from their contribution, someone else would gladly take their place.
Incidentally, why don't you spend some of your time providing the more expensive pharmaceutical work for free instead of the less expensive work that you currently do for free? I mean, since you're so indignant about their returns and all...
Here's a bonus question to redeem yourself: Why do you think pharmas give free pizza to physicians? (Hint: how do 100% objective, licensed, certified, don't-you-fucking-ever-question doctors make health care decisions for patients?)
Brilliant analysis!
Now, explain for me, just briefly, why the universities don't do that last step themselves? I mean, if it's so easy and would generate for them superprofits...?
Their position on homosexual Scoutmasters.
/.ers are interested in *that* BSA, that's why.
I mean, this story wasn't about the Boy Scouts, but *when*
(To errant mods that have been targeting me for downmods: please have mercy. I will pay your tribute. Just cut it out.)
Those are goals, not policies.
Guess which one's easier to support?
I appreciate your articulate response but disagree on a few points.
...
...
Is consistency necessary? Is it ideal?
Yes, and yes, obviously. If you say, "X is wrong because of principle Y" and then it turns out that Y implies Z, and you reject Z, you must revise Y, accept Z, or accept the invalidity of your argument against X. It's that simple.
I support the concept of copyright simply because
So, you're a rule utilitarian. I largely agree with that stance, but it's beyond the scope of the point I'm making here.
But copyright is sui generis. The closest that it comes to property law is that a copyright itself (as opposed to the creative work the copyright governs, or copies in which that work is embodied) could be considered a piece of property; I don't think it is, but an honest argument can be made.
Ownership of a physical object *is*, by definition, ownership of a bundle of rights (and people disagree on what rights that should include) that have that object as a referent. Ownership of a copyright is, just the same, ownership of a bundle of rights with -- yep -- physical objects as referents. In this respect, it is undebatable that they are the same.
References to property in conjunction with copyright strike me as inevitably being misleading (often deliberately so). They're usually an attempt to get us to think emotionally, rather than rationally, and to apply norms from an unrelated field (real and personal property) which are not appropriate in the copyright domain.
No, they're not misleading, or deliberately misleading. People talk about copyright as property because each and every honest, intelligent person who has ever approached the issue, has, without anyone's prodding, seen stark parallels. Specifically, *exclusion rights* over a sphere of activity attach when someone brings something useful into the domain of human action (i.e. homesteading an object or instantiating a new idea). The exclusion rights can then be transferred. Those are very strong parallels. They only differ in how they specify the referents.
(And of course, those norms are often at odds with property law too -- look at all the bizarre ado over the Kelo case a few years back)
Why does it matter whether a) peoples' opinions about how the law *should be* given a set of axioms, conflicts with b) currently existing property law.
FWIW, eminent domain is -- yes -- expropriation of a bundle of rights, and can and has happened just the same with IP -- cf. humanitarian patent-breaking.
I suppose that there is consistency in that copyright law is utilitarian, and property law is also utilitarian, and the regulation of the airwaves is also utilitarian.
Again, it's great to talk about how rule utilitarianism can provide a good framework for dealing with all those issues, but it's tangential here. The topic here is whether it's possible to consistently distinguish IP from other forms of property (and thus treat it differently) on the grounds that it "doesn't have natural limits", and I believe I have shown that *that approach* is invalid.
I don't know if you're the original responder and intended to post AC or what, but regardless:
The point of a broadcast is to be heard, not merely to send EM waves into the stratosphere for fun.
Says who? Again, arbitrary, arbitrary. Why does the fact that some people like using the EM spectrum to transmit information, justify their right in it? What if some people do in fact like blasting radio waves, irrespective of information transmission (perhaps because of a religious belief)?
Many people using it at the same time to transmit information (hint: the whole POINT of a license) interfere with each other. Read up on Shannon's law
Yes, I'm familiar with that, genius. The fact that they interfere was the basis for my point about the original poster's in consistency.
The rivalrousness is inherent,
Yeah, rivalrousness is inherent in transmitting information through the EM spectrum. Just as it's inherent in the "exclusive legal right to publish intellectual work X". That was the point.
The notion of a right was created to address the inherent harm, the right wasn't created to CAUSE some harm to the property holder!
And you reveal the circularity of your argument!
you: I believe some property rights should exist. IP is not one of them, because there's no natural limit on copying an intellectual work.
me: So would you say EM spectrum rights are invalid because there's no natural limit on how many people can create radio waves?
you: No, the RELEVANT USE of the EM spectrum is to transmit information, and THAT is scarce.
me: And the RELEVANT USE of the idea-space is to create intellectual works over which you have some control against copying by others.
you: No, because that violates others' property rights.
me: *falls out of chair*
See also this post by the guy who made Gmail on what it means to own a right.
Hm, not sure why you linked to him, since:
-He supports "imaginary property".
-His whole post was just a semantic point that the label "stealing" should go to one kind of rights violation but not another.
So now you know why I don't believe in imaginary property.
No, I just know why you can't understand a simple point: you cannot consistently oppose IP but support spectrum rights on the grounds that there is scarcity in one and not the other.
Well, I know of one robot that gives directions, and one superiority of her is that she appropriately follows company sexual harassment policy when you grope her robotic breasts.
Most women don't even do that.
This is not to say I agree with all of what IP proponents say -- I just think the issue is more complicated than the anti-IP side wants us to believe.
(Prediction: based on past threads, the mere fact that I am arguing against an anti-IP arguments means I *may* get one net upmod, while everyone else will get modded up regardless of their argument's merit.)
So why does "a desire to use the EM spectrum to transmit information" justify cordoning off rights in frequencies, while "a desire to exlusively publish an intellectual work" doesn't justify cordoning off rights in expression patterns? Arbitrary, arbitrary.
Good luck finding a scarcity distinction in IP that doesn't work against a property right you currently support. Hint: there is none.