- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Open Source Race to Zero May Destroy Software Industry
|
|
|
Comments (94)
74 earlier comments in the full thread.
> An authored work is protected by copyright from the time it is authored. It's been that way since 1976.
Which, again, does nothing to actually prevent abuse. I still have to prove I wrote something before someone else.
Dino, seriously, you see this as an important service. In many ways, SO DO I. So how to solve this without coercion?
Private registry. Obviously, it's very important to an author to be able to prove ownership, so let them register it in a 3rd party registrar.
I'm all for credit where credit is due. What I will not do is create massive bureaucracy and punish everyone just because I think it's a good idea.
Then, as with all other "crimes", demonstrate harm and collect damages.
If you cannot prove harm, then what good is the government program doing anyway? Either there is harm, or there is no crime.
As for roads, I do have a very serious question for you: Why aren't you blaming the providers of these dangerous, arbitrarily marked throughfares, for the failings of their product?
GOVERNMENT
The days of privately provided roads, hailed at the time for their quality and safety, are long gone.
However, they have been chronicled many times. The book I'm reading right now is called "The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society"
http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=17
Here's a quick mp3 by Walter Block on the subject of roads, for anyone interested:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-1...
Edit:
Ooo! Walter has a daily article today on the subject on Mises.org too: "Open Letter To Mothers Against Drunk Driving"
http://mises.org/story/3419
Which, again, does nothing to actually prevent abuse. I still have to prove I wrote something before someone else.
Dino, seriously, you see this as an important service. In many ways, SO DO I. So how to solve this without coercion?
Private registry. Obviously, it's very important to an author to be able to prove ownership, so let them register it in a 3rd party registrar.
I'm all for credit where credit is due. What I will not do is create massive bureaucracy and punish everyone just because I think it's a good idea.
Then, as with all other "crimes", demonstrate harm and collect damages.
If you cannot prove harm, then what good is the government program doing anyway? Either there is harm, or there is no crime.
As for roads, I do have a very serious question for you: Why aren't you blaming the providers of these dangerous, arbitrarily marked throughfares, for the failings of their product?
GOVERNMENT
The days of privately provided roads, hailed at the time for their quality and safety, are long gone.
However, they have been chronicled many times. The book I'm reading right now is called "The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society"
http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=17
Here's a quick mp3 by Walter Block on the subject of roads, for anyone interested:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-1...
Edit:
Ooo! Walter has a daily article today on the subject on Mises.org too: "Open Letter To Mothers Against Drunk Driving"
http://mises.org/story/3419
C'mon, dino. I've heard better ones than that at noon on the playground.
JD, my FJ1200 is rusting in the garage right now. I miss it, but NC is _flat_ and boring out here on the coastal plain.
I've seen friends die and nearly die on (or rather, off) their motorcycles, and none of them (the nearly group) blames the government for not putting up the right signs.
When California enacted their helmet law, doctors couldn't just put "head injury" on the death certificates any more. So they had to put the other causes.
As even Dino admits, the statistics are arbitrary on the effects of the laws. But I would much rather depend upon insurance companies to reward good driving/riding habits than the government to try to mandate them with arbitrary law, after law, after law....
I've seen friends die and nearly die on (or rather, off) their motorcycles, and none of them (the nearly group) blames the government for not putting up the right signs.
When California enacted their helmet law, doctors couldn't just put "head injury" on the death certificates any more. So they had to put the other causes.
As even Dino admits, the statistics are arbitrary on the effects of the laws. But I would much rather depend upon insurance companies to reward good driving/riding habits than the government to try to mandate them with arbitrary law, after law, after law....
>Why aren't you blaming the providers of these dangerous, arbitrarily marked throughfares, for the failings of their product?
Why do you assume that I'm not?
Why do you assume that I'm not?
> Looks like I misunderstood the first time around, so -- never mind.
De nada. It happens.
> I've seen friends die and nearly die on (or rather, off) their motorcycles, and none of them (the nearly group) blames the government for not putting up the right signs.
Yeah, helmet laws fall into the same category.
De nada. It happens.
> I've seen friends die and nearly die on (or rather, off) their motorcycles, and none of them (the nearly group) blames the government for not putting up the right signs.
Yeah, helmet laws fall into the same category.
> Why do you assume that I'm not?
Because of the long tendency that if it's something I think government should have no part in, you consider government intervention to be needed.
Because of the long tendency that if it's something I think government should have no part in, you consider government intervention to be needed.
Bob -
Then your logic is backwards.
If I presumed the roads to be a private responsibility, I should blame the individuals who did not get together to make better roads -- similar to those businessfolks in Hawaii who recently banded together to repair a flood-damaged road after the local government said it would need millions of dollars and 2 years to do the job.
If I presume roads to be a legitimate government activity, I should blame the government when it builds unsafe roads.
Then your logic is backwards.
If I presumed the roads to be a private responsibility, I should blame the individuals who did not get together to make better roads -- similar to those businessfolks in Hawaii who recently banded together to repair a flood-damaged road after the local government said it would need millions of dollars and 2 years to do the job.
If I presume roads to be a legitimate government activity, I should blame the government when it builds unsafe roads.
Dino,
My logic is not backwards. You're blaming individuals for the results of government roads.
You're not blaming those who built, operate, and have made themselves completely un-liable for the results of their acts.
Without question you and I talk past each other consistently. There is no other way you could so often be so completely wrong. Rather than consider you an idiot, I must conclude that you and I just are not talking about the same things.
My logic is not backwards. You're blaming individuals for the results of government roads.
You're not blaming those who built, operate, and have made themselves completely un-liable for the results of their acts.
Without question you and I talk past each other consistently. There is no other way you could so often be so completely wrong. Rather than consider you an idiot, I must conclude that you and I just are not talking about the same things.
>You're blaming individuals for the results of government roads.
How do you figure? You are making that up out of whole cloth.
How do you figure? You are making that up out of whole cloth.
> You are making that up out of whole cloth.
Then I didn't understand anything that you said.
Then I didn't understand anything that you said.
>Then I didn't understand anything that you said.
That I could believe, but don't. More likely, you're just being cranky.
That I could believe, but don't. More likely, you're just being cranky.
I can't see any FOSS angle to any of this except for the first few posts.
Sander -
There isn't. We just went off having fun.
There isn't. We just went off having fun.
Joyriding, huh Dino? When you go real fast those posts look like a picket fence.
> That I could believe, but don't.
The simple fact is that if what I've said about your assertions is "wrong", then I didn't understand your assertions.
I do wish you would simply take what I say instead of constantly reinterpreting to fit your own bias. That particular twisting has infuriated me since we first met.
The simple fact is that if what I've said about your assertions is "wrong", then I didn't understand your assertions.
I do wish you would simply take what I say instead of constantly reinterpreting to fit your own bias. That particular twisting has infuriated me since we first met.
tt -
I think it would be fun to get the site designers to set something up like that Civic commercial with the musical road. Not sure how it would work, but built-in site-induced background music would be a unique selling proposition.
I think it would be fun to get the site designers to set something up like that Civic commercial with the musical road. Not sure how it would work, but built-in site-induced background music would be a unique selling proposition.
Bob -
I referred to a single statement you made -- that somehow I blamed drivers for roads built by the states. I am completely perplexed at how you came to that conclusion, unless you believe that government is simply the "hands of the people" or some such thing. Knowing that you are a libertarian makes that seem unlikely.
I referred to a single statement you made -- that somehow I blamed drivers for roads built by the states. I am completely perplexed at how you came to that conclusion, unless you believe that government is simply the "hands of the people" or some such thing. Knowing that you are a libertarian makes that seem unlikely.
> I am completely perplexed at how you came to that conclusion
Which is why it is obvious that I have no understood anything of what you wrote.
But you don't think that's true, so I am left standing here in complete confusion about what it is you have chosen to believe IS true.
Unfortunately, I'm now left with nothing but repeating what I've already said.
Which is why it is obvious that I have no understood anything of what you wrote.
But you don't think that's true, so I am left standing here in complete confusion about what it is you have chosen to believe IS true.
Unfortunately, I'm now left with nothing but repeating what I've already said.
>Unfortunately, I'm now left with nothing but repeating what I've already said.
Given your utter unwillingness to explain yourself or to even suggest what I said that could lead to such a ridiculous conclusion, better to just let it go.
Given your utter unwillingness to explain yourself or to even suggest what I said that could lead to such a ridiculous conclusion, better to just let it go.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I'm sorry gus. Didn't mean to offend you. How about this: "You're not smarter than that.".
Are we good now?