Prev: I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Next: |GG| One more nail in the optical viewfinder coffin
From: sobriquet on 22 Oct 2009 09:46
On 22 okt, 11:36, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 22 okt, 02:25, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >> "sobriquet" <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> : On 22 okt, 01:15, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >> : > "sobriquet"
> >> : > :
> >> : > : It used to be effective for that purpose, when there were only
> >> centralized
> >> : > publishers who benefited from copyright as a means of protection against
> >> : > unfair competition from other publishers.
> >> : >
> >> : > : At this point with decentralized publishing on the web, where
> >> : > : everybody can publish and distribute things equally effectively, the
> >> : > : traditional purpose of copyright has been completely
> >> : > : lost
> >> : >
> >> : > I presume you're aware of the adage that one can't sell from an empty
> >> wagon.
> >> : >
> >> : > Once the information wagon is empty where do you propose to source new
> >> : > information for your free mart?
> >> :
> >> : That's why it's important to tax information and to device a fair
> >> : system of distributing
> >> : those taxes amongst people who create new things.
> >> : Copyright is completely ineffective, so by getting rid of it, we
> >> : improve the situation right away but we might as well maintain
> >> : copyright until a fair system of taxation is implemented which can
> >> : replace copyright as a means to ensure that people who come up with
> >> : new content can earn an income in this fashion so they can devote
> >> : their time to their creative passion.
> >> : In practice, there is no copyright on the internet as 99% of the
> >> : people who exchange information online tend to ignore copyright issues
> >> : (the bulk of online communication concerns data on filesharing
> >> : networks).
> >> :
> >> : At this point there are so many opportunities to automate work, that
> >> : nobody should feel forced to work for a living and the government can
> >> : provide an unconditional income for free.
> >> : This means that people can devote their time to their hobby or
> >> : passion, regardless whether or not they earn any money with their
> >> : activities. Because there is more than enough material wealth and
> >> : technological ingenuity that the production of basic necessities
> >> : (food, clothing, shelter and internet) can be fully automated.
> >> You've been reading too many utopian space cadet dime novels. Not even
> >> Ashmoe's wildest works went that far.
> >> An aside you've still not answered the question where you propose to source
> >> new information for your free mart? Hint: magic is not a valid response
> >You're sorely mistaken if you think the universe revolves around work
> >and making
> >a living. Money might disappear in the near future when we have
> >nanotechnology or other revolutionary innovations which allow us to
> >duplicate physical commodities as easily as bitstrings.
> >This might sound like science fiction to people who don't follow
> >technological developments, but if you would have told people 100
> >years ago about the technology we have today (like lasers, microwaves,
> >cellphones, gps, and computers) they would consider these claims
> >deluded fantasies from people who have been reading too may science
> >fiction novels.
> >So 10, 50 or 100 years from now, who knows what amazing new inventions
> >the scientists will have concocted? But it's unlikely that money will
> >play a significant role in the future as society gradually begins to
> >revolve around information instead of money.
> You remind me of the student-fanaticists who used to have a place in
> all the underground cells which seemed to form a part of life in
> Czarist Russia before the revolution. Utterly impractical, out of
> touch with the realities of the world, and the first to be sacrificed
> when the Okhrana (secret police) knocked the door down.
> Eric Stevens
You remind me of the fascists who started arbitrarily criminalizing
minorities and ended up with such flagrant human rights violations
that it motivated the development of the universal declaration of
Until this declaration is implemented and people can truly enjoy
freedom, this whole discussion about intellectual property is moot.
The biggest threat to human rights nowadays are corporate interests,
as the government is far from neutral and hence it will often be
biased in favor of the interests of large corporations and at the
expense of human rights of individual people.
E.g. people can't grow cannabis at home, because it might interfere
with the ability of the pharmaceutical industry to push the drugs they
invented as a lousy alternative.
It's a very obvious travesty of justice, as anyone can see the damage
to society caused by alcohol abuse is way beyond the damage caused by
cannabis abuse, and yet the government condemns people who happen to
prefer a relatively less harmful alternative recreational intoxicant,
while condoning people who happen to prefer the more harmful and legal
It makes no sense whatsoever to entrust adults with lethal quantities
of the more addictive drug alcohol, while supposedly protecting them
from themselves like toddlers when it comes to the non-lethal and less
addictive drug cannabis.
From: sobriquet on 22 Oct 2009 09:47
On 22 okt, 16:04, Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > On 21 okt, 17:29, Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> sobriquet wrote:
> >>> On 21 okt, 00:07, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:03:44 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
> >>>> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 20 okt, 06:19, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...(a)sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:17 -0700 (PDT), sobriquet
> >>>>>> <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 19 okt, 20:24, "NotMe" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> [..misguided and deluded nonsense snipped..]
> >>>>>>> IPR is a figment of your lively imagination.
> >>>>>>> All people with any understanding of information technology and a
> >>>>>>> tight budget can simply download everything
> >>>>>>> for free and pay taxes in compensation for copyright infringement..
> >>>>>> And how does the creator of the original work survive? Is he employed
> >>>>>> by the state?
> >>>>>> Eric Stevens
> >>>>> The state should provide an unconditional basic income (for food,
> >>>>> clothing, shelter and
> >>>>> internet), so people don't feel forced to waste their time in exchange
> >>>>> for money.
> >>>> From where does the state get the resources for the "unconditional
> >>>> basic income (for food, clothing, shelter and internet)"?
> >>> It's simply a matter of coming up with smart technology that can
> >>> create and maintain itself.
> >> Gee, it's that simple?
> > Once you have a robot that can build itself from scratch which can be
> > deployed for arbitrary tasks, it becomes very simple indeed. We're not
> > talking about something complicated like a robot that can improve upon
> > it's own design when it builds a new copy of itself.
> Be sure to let us know when you designed a robot that can build itself
> from scratch.
I already have a program that can copy itself from scratch.
I'm not concerned with robots myself, as I'm primarily interested in
software, rather than hardware.
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
From: J. Clarke on 22 Oct 2009 11:07
> Money has already lost most of its relevance and significance, as just
> about anything I'm interested in, is available for free online.
So where do you get food free online?
From: J. Clarke on 22 Oct 2009 17:39
> On 22 okt, 17:07, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>> sobriquet wrote:
>>> Money has already lost most of its relevance and significance, as
>>> just about anything I'm interested in, is available for free online.
>> So where do you get food free online?
> Food for thought... at a p2p network near you.
Fat lot of good "food for thought" does when you're starving to death.
From: sobriquet on 22 Oct 2009 18:26
On 22 okt, 23:39, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> sobriquet wrote:
> > On 22 okt, 17:07, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> >> sobriquet wrote:
> >>> Money has already lost most of its relevance and significance, as
> >>> just about anything I'm interested in, is available for free online.
> >> So where do you get food free online?
> > Food for thought... at a p2p network near you.
> Fat lot of good "food for thought" does when you're starving to death.
Food is not that expensive (if you buy it at the local supermarket and
cook it yourself). It doesn't take that much time and effort to earn
enough so you never get hungry.
But the information you consume has a far bigger impact on your
outlook on life than the food you eat.