SOPA
-
There have been several discussions on what can and cannot be said. Example, I cannot say I hate ... (fill in ethnic group of choice) as it is my offend one or two people, so their right trumps my right. As to the shed I cannot see why I can not put a shed where I want as long as it is structually sound. My neighbors can not see it as I live in a rural area (although it is within city limits). I know I have the right to NOT do something. But I do not see why if I want to live some place that I have to join the HOA. Same with paying union dues even if not a union memeber because it is a union State agency.
-
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years. "Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
I think information should be free. The internet made an avenue for that. Relatively free of coarse. You have to pay for the internet connection. Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies. It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
-
djj55 wrote:
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years.
Must be someplace besides the US.
djj55 wrote:
"Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
Freedom of course is something that extends to every individual in the community which means that the freedom of one person must be balanced against the freedoms of others. Naturally there are many "freedoms" that are curtailed. Such as the ability to punch or kill ones neighbor. Or to have sex with a 5 year old. I know there are people that are advocating for the latter and rather certain that individuals at least would claim that the former is a right. In the US that is. In the US if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA (Home Owner Association) then ones freedom extends to not buying a house with such an agreement in the first place. And one is free to read or not read it before signing it. But just as with any other contract ones freedom to disregard the terms of a contract does not allow one to infringe on the other parties right to expect that terms of the contract are upheld.
-
There have been several discussions on what can and cannot be said. Example, I cannot say I hate ... (fill in ethnic group of choice) as it is my offend one or two people, so their right trumps my right. As to the shed I cannot see why I can not put a shed where I want as long as it is structually sound. My neighbors can not see it as I live in a rural area (although it is within city limits). I know I have the right to NOT do something. But I do not see why if I want to live some place that I have to join the HOA. Same with paying union dues even if not a union memeber because it is a union State agency.
djj55 wrote:
There have been several discussions on what can and cannot be said. Example, I cannot say I hate ... (fill in ethnic group of choice) as it is my offend one or two people, so their right trumps my right.
Not sure what context you are referring to. But in the US I can go onto any street corner and state, loudly, exactly that. If however you then follow it up with "I am going to kill ..." or "Everyone should go out right now and kill ..." then that is a different matter.
djj55 wrote:
As to the shed I cannot see why I can not put a shed where I want as long as it is structually sound. My neighbors can not see it as I live in a rural area (although it is within city limits).
Because the city has restrictions that says you can't. And if you disagree with that, in the US, then the solution is to get involved in the political process and enact a change that allows that for that city. Or move outside the city. As for why you are where you are in the first place either the law was in place when you moved in or it was enacted after that. And it is not the states responsibility to inform you of every law that might or might not impact you. It is your responsibility to learn those. You are free to do that or not do that. But it isn't the states fault when you don't.
djj55 wrote:
But I do not see why if I want to live some place that I have to join the HOA. Same with paying union dues even if not a union memeber because it is a union State agency.
Then don't live in areas with them. Or don't join organizations with unions. Myself I see benefits to the fact that my neighbors can't build ramshackle collections of whatever they want. Nor can they do things like turn their yards into auto junk yards. Without an HOA or city ordinances exactly that is allowed to happen. When one lives in a neighborhood/city then the individuals of those areas should have the right to collectively agree on what is permitted within that area when there is a potential to impact others in that area. Some examples of unlimited freedom associated with property rights follows and you should consider if you want to allow your neighbors to do these. And if they can't then neither can you. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06211/709125-37.stm[
-
When I was driving an oil truck we had to pay the union for the right to haul oil. We did not belong, were not members, and got no benefits. We just had to pay the dues anyway.
loctrice wrote:
When I was driving an oil truck we had to pay the union for the right to haul oil. We did not belong, were not members, and got no benefits. We just had to pay the dues anyway.
And my property taxes are used to fund schools even though I have no kids. And my state taxes are used to regulate industries that I do not use, do not work for and never will. And my state taxes are used to enforce laws that I disagree with. I am rather certain that I shop at any number of stores where the spending habits of the owners of those stores (based on the profit from my purchases) would be either frivolous or even offensive to me. And it is unfair that some people have way more money than I do. However when one lives in a society one must compromise to facilitate the needs of living in that society. At least in the US there is in fact some freedom to escape from society almost entirely. There are remote places in Alaska and probably Wyoming and the Dakotas where one can pretty much do what one wants (including for example dying in an accident that would not happen in a city where there is timely access to medical facilities.) And the US is a paradise compared to some places in the world where almost any business deal must be accompanied by a bribe.
-
I think information should be free. The internet made an avenue for that. Relatively free of coarse. You have to pay for the internet connection. Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies. It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free.
Ok. However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet. And mediums cost money.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money. Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money. And the internet is not a necessity.
loctrice wrote:
It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
Which is at best simplistic. The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it. Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
-
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free.
Ok. However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet. And mediums cost money.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money. Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money. And the internet is not a necessity.
loctrice wrote:
It happens that way when companies find a way to own it. Now the lines we transmit the internet on are not enough, they have to find new ways to own the internet itself.
Which is at best simplistic. The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it. Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
jschell wrote:
However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet.
I did say, directly after the part you quoted, that the internet was an avenue for that.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
jschell wrote:
Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money.
And the internet is not a necessity.This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Off the backs of those people who actually created it. (much like Edison). Many of the technologies used in the internet are open source, and/or were created as open source. I think you will have a harder time trying to find something that people are trying to make money off of that did NOT come from someone/some group who did not have money as their main goal.
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
I find that a loaded question, possibly because I am viewing things from another angle. You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all. After OTHER people saw a way to gain from it, they could begin funding it, but that doesn't mean that the people actually creating it are in it for the money. In the case of linux, we got lucky and it was protected and remained open. Also, trying to name a tangible item that I own does not fit well in the conversation. If you thin
-
jschell wrote:
However I get no information magically. It all arrives via some medium like books, magazines, TV, CDs, internet.
I did say, directly after the part you quoted, that the internet was an avenue for that.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
jschell wrote:
Any commodity in a capitalistic society is open to the profit. And at least where I live the utility company does make money.
And the internet is not a necessity.This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Off the backs of those people who actually created it. (much like Edison). Many of the technologies used in the internet are open source, and/or were created as open source. I think you will have a harder time trying to find something that people are trying to make money off of that did NOT come from someone/some group who did not have money as their main goal.
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
I find that a loaded question, possibly because I am viewing things from another angle. You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all. After OTHER people saw a way to gain from it, they could begin funding it, but that doesn't mean that the people actually creating it are in it for the money. In the case of linux, we got lucky and it was protected and remained open. Also, trying to name a tangible item that I own does not fit well in the conversation. If you thin
loctrice wrote:
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
No. The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then. The fact that you can hand wrap a core and then use a hand crank to generate electricity has nothing to do with the world wide availability and uses for electricity which came about due to the business of selling it.
loctrice wrote:
This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
I don't see how any of that is relevant. The same thing happens if you don't feed your children. But stores do not give away food free because of that.
loctrice wrote:
You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all.
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate existing functionality in commercial applications?
loctrice wrote:
I could also answer: my daughter
Obviously specious to the scope of this argument. You might as well go out to a park and build a mud castle and then improve it an hour later and then "claim" that that proves your point. Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
loctrice wrote:
My point is information should be free.
And my point, again, is that 1. Much information is not free. Never has been. If I write a book of fiction I don't want you copying it just because you think that my intellectual product doesn't have at least some value as compared to a non-intellectual product (like a house.) 2. Information does NOT exist without a medium. And the internet is a medium. It isn't information.
loctrice wrote:
There are non profit groups that have community wifi and other
-
loctrice wrote:
Correct, but Tesla did not. Edison did not create/invent electricity.
No. The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then. The fact that you can hand wrap a core and then use a hand crank to generate electricity has nothing to do with the world wide availability and uses for electricity which came about due to the business of selling it.
loctrice wrote:
This is subject to a good many things. The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your kids away if they do not have direct access to both electricity and running water. However, they will shut your utilities off if you do not have the $.
I don't see how any of that is relevant. The same thing happens if you don't feed your children. But stores do not give away food free because of that.
loctrice wrote:
You can take something like open source projects (linux for instance). They did not start, or get created with money as a goal at all.
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate existing functionality in commercial applications?
loctrice wrote:
I could also answer: my daughter
Obviously specious to the scope of this argument. You might as well go out to a park and build a mud castle and then improve it an hour later and then "claim" that that proves your point. Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
loctrice wrote:
My point is information should be free.
And my point, again, is that 1. Much information is not free. Never has been. If I write a book of fiction I don't want you copying it just because you think that my intellectual product doesn't have at least some value as compared to a non-intellectual product (like a house.) 2. Information does NOT exist without a medium. And the internet is a medium. It isn't information.
loctrice wrote:
There are non profit groups that have community wifi and other
jschell wrote:
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate improve/share existing functionality in commercial applications? That were origionally black boxed and/or proprietary
Fixed that statement. But no, I don't agree completely with that. Even so, that very statement goes to me I think. Break open commercial software, as most open source people I know believe that information should be shared. Even if you do choose to use it to make money.
jschell wrote:
The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then.
Point was, the system that is in place now is not what was meant. The fact that someone who found a way to make money off of it , and was allowed to, was/is the problem. Would you actually be complaining if it had gone off as planned? I don't think so.
jschell wrote:
Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
My point was you are asking for something obviously tangible, and I'm talking about intellectual products. You don't own the idea of dns, and the internet itself isn't something you can put in your pocket.
jschell wrote:
1. Much information is not free. Never has been.
I don't think that is true. Information usually starts out free.
jschell wrote:
They don't "circumvent it". No more than a soup kitchen 'circumvents' buying food.
Circumvent the rule that says they cannot share the connection. Just like if a soup kitchen was told it could only give food to and they find a way to give it to anyone in need.
jschell wrote:
But don't insist that everyone do it.
I never did insist that everyone do it. And, I might point out , that there is a differnce in paying a reasonable amount for something that should be common, and that same thing not being available beacause of greed.
jschell wrote:
No idea what that is supposed to mean.
-
jschell wrote:
You do realize that most, and perhaps all, of the existing Linux functionality came about through a need/desire to duplicate improve/share existing functionality in commercial applications? That were origionally black boxed and/or proprietary
Fixed that statement. But no, I don't agree completely with that. Even so, that very statement goes to me I think. Break open commercial software, as most open source people I know believe that information should be shared. Even if you do choose to use it to make money.
jschell wrote:
The system that is in place now, was driven by Edison's business decisions then.
Point was, the system that is in place now is not what was meant. The fact that someone who found a way to make money off of it , and was allowed to, was/is the problem. Would you actually be complaining if it had gone off as planned? I don't think so.
jschell wrote:
Pick something that has had an impact on people not just a person (you.) To make it easy and clear, I will only accept examples that have impacted more than 100,000 people.
My point was you are asking for something obviously tangible, and I'm talking about intellectual products. You don't own the idea of dns, and the internet itself isn't something you can put in your pocket.
jschell wrote:
1. Much information is not free. Never has been.
I don't think that is true. Information usually starts out free.
jschell wrote:
They don't "circumvent it". No more than a soup kitchen 'circumvents' buying food.
Circumvent the rule that says they cannot share the connection. Just like if a soup kitchen was told it could only give food to and they find a way to give it to anyone in need.
jschell wrote:
But don't insist that everyone do it.
I never did insist that everyone do it. And, I might point out , that there is a differnce in paying a reasonable amount for something that should be common, and that same thing not being available beacause of greed.
jschell wrote:
No idea what that is supposed to mean.
loctrice wrote:
Fixed that statement.
You fixed it incorrectly. The drive was to make a free version by duplicating the existing functionality. Period. No one 'improved' the command line command cat. Nor was there a substantial drive to improve the IP stack. The drive was to duplicate it. Matter of fact some implementations, although usable, were for a long time substandard in functionality. Threads is a recent example of that.
loctrice wrote:
Point was, the system that is in place now is not what was meant. The fact that someone who found a way to make money off of it , and was allowed to, was/is the problem. Would you actually be complaining if it had gone off as planned? I don't think so.
The fact that it evolved is exactly my point. If the internet had remained in its original form no one would use it. At best it would have been used for limited email and cell phones would have eliminated it completely.
loctrice wrote:
My point was you are asking for something obviously tangible, and I'm talking about intellectual products. You don't own the idea of dns, and the internet itself isn't something you can put in your pocket.
Wrong. A cell phone doesn't work without a cell network. It also doesn't work with out contractual agreements between different service providers. Grocery stores don't work without a vast infrastructure based on thousands of contractual agreements. And the "internet" doesn't work in its present form without the vast and hugely expensive internet backbone and local networks. All of those systems work and work well because of the business associated with it based on tangible and intangible characteristics.
loctrice wrote:
I don't think that is true. Information usually starts out free.
Wrong. Currently in the US any original material that is written down is implicitly copyrighted. Companies are creating more patents now in a year then used to be created in decades. There are vastly more processes in place to protect trade secrets and vastly more lawsuits when that is breached. The fact that there is more free information now than 100 years ago is because there is vastly more information. Even your internet protocol examples were often created using specific support from companies
-
loctrice wrote:
Fixed that statement.
You fixed it incorrectly. The drive was to make a free version by duplicating the existing functionality. Period. No one 'improved' the command line command cat. Nor was there a substantial drive to improve the IP stack. The drive was to duplicate it. Matter of fact some implementations, although usable, were for a long time substandard in functionality. Threads is a recent example of that.
loctrice wrote:
Point was, the system that is in place now is not what was meant. The fact that someone who found a way to make money off of it , and was allowed to, was/is the problem. Would you actually be complaining if it had gone off as planned? I don't think so.
The fact that it evolved is exactly my point. If the internet had remained in its original form no one would use it. At best it would have been used for limited email and cell phones would have eliminated it completely.
loctrice wrote:
My point was you are asking for something obviously tangible, and I'm talking about intellectual products. You don't own the idea of dns, and the internet itself isn't something you can put in your pocket.
Wrong. A cell phone doesn't work without a cell network. It also doesn't work with out contractual agreements between different service providers. Grocery stores don't work without a vast infrastructure based on thousands of contractual agreements. And the "internet" doesn't work in its present form without the vast and hugely expensive internet backbone and local networks. All of those systems work and work well because of the business associated with it based on tangible and intangible characteristics.
loctrice wrote:
I don't think that is true. Information usually starts out free.
Wrong. Currently in the US any original material that is written down is implicitly copyrighted. Companies are creating more patents now in a year then used to be created in decades. There are vastly more processes in place to protect trade secrets and vastly more lawsuits when that is breached. The fact that there is more free information now than 100 years ago is because there is vastly more information. Even your internet protocol examples were often created using specific support from companies
jschell wrote:
Sigh...which is wrong and has nothing to do with what I said.
--edited-- You should quote my answer, or at least include it. That is what I said to expand on my answer. The context that you quoted doesn't permit you to respond that way. Unless of coarse you are aware that you said my opinion is wrong, and meant it that way. --end edit -- --added--
jschell wrote:
You fixed it incorrectly. The drive was to make a free version by duplicating the existing functionality. Period.
Even so, it doesn't change the end result. Again, I don't agree with that. I do agree that there were many made specifically for the purpose of duplicating existing functionality, but not all. Duplicating existing functionality is still giving options to the community. It could very well be that company x was charging too much, and this guy gave an alternative..... either way that alternative was protected as free knowledge. -- end adition--
jschell wrote:
The only way you are going to starve in the US is if you choose to do so
I suppose this is correct. Technically you could very well get yourself thrown in jail so you could have something to eat, or swipe food like I used to do sometimes. I happen to know, having been the guy in the line at the soup kitchen to get something to eat, that it is VERY possible to starve. Sure, there are programs like the soup kitchen around, or teen shelters from when I was younger. You don't always get something to eat though, and those programs aren't everywhere. It was quite possible to go a couple days without eating, and I was one of the luckier one's because I was young. Some people I know did not have it so well. To be truthful though, I have to admit I have never known anyone that starved to death. I also have not known anyone personally who died of malnutrition. I myself (when I was younger of course) have been hospitalized from malnutrition, dehydration, and exhaustion related to eating.
jschell wrote:
And regardless of how one gets food there is still a cost associated with it. Same as the internet. And the only way you are going to be able to watch two streaming movies on your computer on the same time is if a company thinks they can make money by providing a product (internet) that you pay for that allows that.
I rea
-
djj55 wrote:
We have not had the right of freedom of speech for several years.
Must be someplace besides the US.
djj55 wrote:
"Free" is a also a relative term in that if you want to do something chances are you will pay a tax. (Example: Put a storage shed in my back yard $100 not counting the cost of the shed.)
Freedom of course is something that extends to every individual in the community which means that the freedom of one person must be balanced against the freedoms of others. Naturally there are many "freedoms" that are curtailed. Such as the ability to punch or kill ones neighbor. Or to have sex with a 5 year old. I know there are people that are advocating for the latter and rather certain that individuals at least would claim that the former is a right. In the US that is. In the US if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA (Home Owner Association) then ones freedom extends to not buying a house with such an agreement in the first place. And one is free to read or not read it before signing it. But just as with any other contract ones freedom to disregard the terms of a contract does not allow one to infringe on the other parties right to expect that terms of the contract are upheld.
jschell wrote:
n the US if you live in a neighborhood with an HOA (Home Owner Association) then ones freedom extends to not buying a house with such an agreement in the first place. And one is free to read or not read it before signing it. But just as with any other contract ones freedom to disregard the terms of a contract does not allow one to infringe on the other parties right to expect that terms of the contract are upheld.
And how much different is that from a covenant on a deed as to who you can sell you home/land to (or more correctly which ethnic and religious groups can't live there). At first you'll say I'm comparing apples to bananas, but not really so. I see a house I like in a location I like - only to find out that the neighborhood gestapo won't allow me to put in red roses, as they decided only yellow is allowed. Or perhaps only Xmas Decorations on the lawn (mandatory?) and no other religious expression visible from the street.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
jschell wrote:
Sigh...which is wrong and has nothing to do with what I said.
--edited-- You should quote my answer, or at least include it. That is what I said to expand on my answer. The context that you quoted doesn't permit you to respond that way. Unless of coarse you are aware that you said my opinion is wrong, and meant it that way. --end edit -- --added--
jschell wrote:
You fixed it incorrectly. The drive was to make a free version by duplicating the existing functionality. Period.
Even so, it doesn't change the end result. Again, I don't agree with that. I do agree that there were many made specifically for the purpose of duplicating existing functionality, but not all. Duplicating existing functionality is still giving options to the community. It could very well be that company x was charging too much, and this guy gave an alternative..... either way that alternative was protected as free knowledge. -- end adition--
jschell wrote:
The only way you are going to starve in the US is if you choose to do so
I suppose this is correct. Technically you could very well get yourself thrown in jail so you could have something to eat, or swipe food like I used to do sometimes. I happen to know, having been the guy in the line at the soup kitchen to get something to eat, that it is VERY possible to starve. Sure, there are programs like the soup kitchen around, or teen shelters from when I was younger. You don't always get something to eat though, and those programs aren't everywhere. It was quite possible to go a couple days without eating, and I was one of the luckier one's because I was young. Some people I know did not have it so well. To be truthful though, I have to admit I have never known anyone that starved to death. I also have not known anyone personally who died of malnutrition. I myself (when I was younger of course) have been hospitalized from malnutrition, dehydration, and exhaustion related to eating.
jschell wrote:
And regardless of how one gets food there is still a cost associated with it. Same as the internet. And the only way you are going to be able to watch two streaming movies on your computer on the same time is if a company thinks they can make money by providing a product (internet) that you pay for that allows that.
I rea
loctrice wrote:
I do agree that there were many made specifically for the purpose of duplicating existing functionality, but not all.
And you agree that most of it was. It was your example suggesting that it had nothing to do with commercial products. "Duplication of commercial" = "Reliance on commercial"
loctrice wrote:
Duplicating existing functionality is still giving options to the community. ...
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
loctrice wrote:
having been the guy in the line at the soup kitchen to get something to eat, that it is VERY possible to starve.
Then it should also be possible for you to provide some statistics in the US for those who starve to death every year.
loctrice wrote:
I realize that is the way it is . That is not the way it should be. That is not even the way it needs to be, or has to be.
That has nothing do to with what I said. I am not talking about parallel universes nor alien worlds. On this planet the the vast majority of benefits of all sorts came about due to commercial interests.
loctrice wrote:
This is part of the problem.
There are problems with it. However it is not itself a problem. And it also has nothing to do with my point.
-
loctrice wrote:
I do agree that there were many made specifically for the purpose of duplicating existing functionality, but not all.
And you agree that most of it was. It was your example suggesting that it had nothing to do with commercial products. "Duplication of commercial" = "Reliance on commercial"
loctrice wrote:
Duplicating existing functionality is still giving options to the community. ...
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
loctrice wrote:
having been the guy in the line at the soup kitchen to get something to eat, that it is VERY possible to starve.
Then it should also be possible for you to provide some statistics in the US for those who starve to death every year.
loctrice wrote:
I realize that is the way it is . That is not the way it should be. That is not even the way it needs to be, or has to be.
That has nothing do to with what I said. I am not talking about parallel universes nor alien worlds. On this planet the the vast majority of benefits of all sorts came about due to commercial interests.
loctrice wrote:
This is part of the problem.
There are problems with it. However it is not itself a problem. And it also has nothing to do with my point.
jschell wrote:
And you agree that most of it was.
No, I did not say that. If you re-read what you quoted you will see that I did not say that.
jschell wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Perhaps not. Though it does have to do with what I said, and what you said was challenging what I said.
jschell wrote:
Then it should also be possible for you to provide some statistics in the US for those who starve to death every year.
That's rediculous. But, if you do a quick google search you can find some for yourself. As a fact, mal nutrition (caused by hunger/starvation) is what is recorded. Besides, if you read a little more 'around' the part you quoted, you'll see that I specifically said that I did not know of anyone personally who died from either.
jschell wrote:
That has nothing do to with what I said. I am not talking about parallel universes nor alien worlds.
No, but it has everything to do with my opinion that information 'should' be free. My statements about that is what we are debating, and that means that statement is relevant in the conversation.
jschell wrote:
There are problems with it. However it is not itself a problem.
I disagree.
jschell wrote:
And it also has nothing to do with my point.
Again, your points were to challenge my statements. Because it has nothing to do with what you said, does not render it irrelevant. The facts your present to backup your case are shaky though. Edison did not invent electricity, he did not invent the light bulb. (Joseph Swan did) Edison lost the lawsuit after patenting the light bulb because he did not create it.Tesla also intended electricity to be free and available to everyone. He explicitely did NOT want it commercialized, because he did not feel like it should be bought and sold. He thought the act of commercializing energy was a scam. History is full of rich people getting the glory for things that were taken from the people who created them, or otherwise swindled away from them. Hell, look at the history of personal computers.... The internet, likewise was not intended for commercial use. Regardless of that, sopa is still wrong. read the
-
jschell wrote:
And you agree that most of it was.
No, I did not say that. If you re-read what you quoted you will see that I did not say that.
jschell wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Perhaps not. Though it does have to do with what I said, and what you said was challenging what I said.
jschell wrote:
Then it should also be possible for you to provide some statistics in the US for those who starve to death every year.
That's rediculous. But, if you do a quick google search you can find some for yourself. As a fact, mal nutrition (caused by hunger/starvation) is what is recorded. Besides, if you read a little more 'around' the part you quoted, you'll see that I specifically said that I did not know of anyone personally who died from either.
jschell wrote:
That has nothing do to with what I said. I am not talking about parallel universes nor alien worlds.
No, but it has everything to do with my opinion that information 'should' be free. My statements about that is what we are debating, and that means that statement is relevant in the conversation.
jschell wrote:
There are problems with it. However it is not itself a problem.
I disagree.
jschell wrote:
And it also has nothing to do with my point.
Again, your points were to challenge my statements. Because it has nothing to do with what you said, does not render it irrelevant. The facts your present to backup your case are shaky though. Edison did not invent electricity, he did not invent the light bulb. (Joseph Swan did) Edison lost the lawsuit after patenting the light bulb because he did not create it.Tesla also intended electricity to be free and available to everyone. He explicitely did NOT want it commercialized, because he did not feel like it should be bought and sold. He thought the act of commercializing energy was a scam. History is full of rich people getting the glory for things that were taken from the people who created them, or otherwise swindled away from them. Hell, look at the history of personal computers.... The internet, likewise was not intended for commercial use. Regardless of that, sopa is still wrong. read the
loctrice wrote:
No, I did not say that. If you re-read what you quoted you will see that I did not say that.
Wrong. You specifically said that and if YOU re-read what I quoted you will see that... "that there were many made specifically for the purpose of duplicating existing functionality,"
loctrice wrote:
But, if you do a quick google search you can find some for yourself. As a fact, mal nutrition (caused by hunger/starvation) is what is recorded.
Nope a "quick google search" does not in fact reveal any such statistics. So again please provide such a link.
loctrice wrote:
I did not know of anyone personally who died from either.
Because there are not any excluding such cases as parents locking children in rooms and not feeding them or people refusing to eat.
loctrice wrote:
Again, your points were to challenge my statements. Because it has nothing to do with what you said, does not render it irrelevant.
Yes it does. I am not responding to what you think. I am responding to what you wrote. If you want to write a long post demonizing whatever it is that you think needs demonizing and explaining in detail what is wrong with that then feel free. HOWEVER, the post that I responded to first made some very specific points which were wrong.
loctrice wrote:
History is full of rich people getting the glory for things that were taken from the people who created them, or otherwise swindled away from them. Hell, look at the history of personal computers....
Nonsense. First if anything personal computers exist because "rich people" screwed up. Second it is a myth in the modern world (and probably at any time) to think that popularizing good ideas (not just technology) is cost free. Good ideas don't sell themselves and attempting to sell bad ideas will not work long term. And "rich people" are not complete idiots so they realize that. And that DOES NOT mean that there are not counter examples - it means that in general that is how it works.
loctrice wrote:
The internet, likewise was not intended for commercial use.
And electricity was never intended to charge cell phones and yet both have
-
loctrice wrote:
No, I did not say that. If you re-read what you quoted you will see that I did not say that.
Wrong. You specifically said that and if YOU re-read what I quoted you will see that... "that there were many made specifically for the purpose of duplicating existing functionality,"
loctrice wrote:
But, if you do a quick google search you can find some for yourself. As a fact, mal nutrition (caused by hunger/starvation) is what is recorded.
Nope a "quick google search" does not in fact reveal any such statistics. So again please provide such a link.
loctrice wrote:
I did not know of anyone personally who died from either.
Because there are not any excluding such cases as parents locking children in rooms and not feeding them or people refusing to eat.
loctrice wrote:
Again, your points were to challenge my statements. Because it has nothing to do with what you said, does not render it irrelevant.
Yes it does. I am not responding to what you think. I am responding to what you wrote. If you want to write a long post demonizing whatever it is that you think needs demonizing and explaining in detail what is wrong with that then feel free. HOWEVER, the post that I responded to first made some very specific points which were wrong.
loctrice wrote:
History is full of rich people getting the glory for things that were taken from the people who created them, or otherwise swindled away from them. Hell, look at the history of personal computers....
Nonsense. First if anything personal computers exist because "rich people" screwed up. Second it is a myth in the modern world (and probably at any time) to think that popularizing good ideas (not just technology) is cost free. Good ideas don't sell themselves and attempting to sell bad ideas will not work long term. And "rich people" are not complete idiots so they realize that. And that DOES NOT mean that there are not counter examples - it means that in general that is how it works.
loctrice wrote:
The internet, likewise was not intended for commercial use.
And electricity was never intended to charge cell phones and yet both have
"And you agree that most of it was." != "that many were"
jschell wrote:
So again please provide such a link.
Again, that is rediculous. We have the internet, I should not have to provide you with links. It is a fact that starvation is not recorded most of the time, only malnutrition. I don't feel I need to provide you with links to help you research something I experienced and saw first hand. 1 a d c d e
jschell wrote:
And that growth occurred because of commercial interest.
It would be interesting to see how it would have grown and what uses we would have found for it had it been free, as intended.
jschell wrote:
personal computers exist because "rich people" screwed up.
Then you should be able to provide links. I was having a good bit of fun. I was interested in this debate, and enjoyed having it. However, the last couple of posts by you have seemed abrasive. Perhaps I am taking it the wrong way, but I thought this was a sporting/fun debate?
-
"And you agree that most of it was." != "that many were"
jschell wrote:
So again please provide such a link.
Again, that is rediculous. We have the internet, I should not have to provide you with links. It is a fact that starvation is not recorded most of the time, only malnutrition. I don't feel I need to provide you with links to help you research something I experienced and saw first hand. 1 a d c d e
jschell wrote:
And that growth occurred because of commercial interest.
It would be interesting to see how it would have grown and what uses we would have found for it had it been free, as intended.
jschell wrote:
personal computers exist because "rich people" screwed up.
Then you should be able to provide links. I was having a good bit of fun. I was interested in this debate, and enjoyed having it. However, the last couple of posts by you have seemed abrasive. Perhaps I am taking it the wrong way, but I thought this was a sporting/fun debate?
loctrice wrote:
I should not have to provide you with links. It is a fact that starvation is not recorded most of the time, only malnutrition.
You said exactly "...could starve to death," I responded to THAT. Not what you thought you said but exactly that. Inflated claims of malnutrition do NOT prove deaths from starvation. None of your links show any such thing in the US. Two of links don't even have anything to do with the US. As an example you provided one link, which had nothing to do with the US that stated "Every year 15 million children die of hunger". It is EXACTLY that sort of statistic that I am asking you to provide for the US. How MANY children die of hunger in the US every year? How MANY adults die of hunger in the US every year? Let me assure you that there are such deaths. But as I stated they are very rare and are caused by things other then availability of food.
loctrice wrote:
It would be interesting to see how it would have grown and what uses we would have found for it had it been free, as intended.
Excluding fantasy land the answer to that is obvious - it would have grown very little. It would have had almost zero impact on the standard consumer because the standard consumer would not have access to it. It would still be very limited. Matter of fact the new
loctrice wrote:
Then you should be able to provide links.
IBM screwed up. They should not have allowed an open ended contract with Microsoft. It was Microsofts ability to run on computers besides IBM that drove PC computer prices down and created a huge competitive market that needed innovation to market against other competitors. http://inventors.about.com/od/computersoftware/a/Putting-Microsoft-On-The-Map.htm[^]
loctrice wrote:
but I thought this was a sporting/fun debate?
To the best of my ability I do not do things that are not fun. Posting to forums is entirely optional on my part so my emotional state always ranges from the intrigued/amused to outright laughter.
-
loctrice wrote:
I should not have to provide you with links. It is a fact that starvation is not recorded most of the time, only malnutrition.
You said exactly "...could starve to death," I responded to THAT. Not what you thought you said but exactly that. Inflated claims of malnutrition do NOT prove deaths from starvation. None of your links show any such thing in the US. Two of links don't even have anything to do with the US. As an example you provided one link, which had nothing to do with the US that stated "Every year 15 million children die of hunger". It is EXACTLY that sort of statistic that I am asking you to provide for the US. How MANY children die of hunger in the US every year? How MANY adults die of hunger in the US every year? Let me assure you that there are such deaths. But as I stated they are very rare and are caused by things other then availability of food.
loctrice wrote:
It would be interesting to see how it would have grown and what uses we would have found for it had it been free, as intended.
Excluding fantasy land the answer to that is obvious - it would have grown very little. It would have had almost zero impact on the standard consumer because the standard consumer would not have access to it. It would still be very limited. Matter of fact the new
loctrice wrote:
Then you should be able to provide links.
IBM screwed up. They should not have allowed an open ended contract with Microsoft. It was Microsofts ability to run on computers besides IBM that drove PC computer prices down and created a huge competitive market that needed innovation to market against other competitors. http://inventors.about.com/od/computersoftware/a/Putting-Microsoft-On-The-Map.htm[^]
loctrice wrote:
but I thought this was a sporting/fun debate?
To the best of my ability I do not do things that are not fun. Posting to forums is entirely optional on my part so my emotional state always ranges from the intrigued/amused to outright laughter.
jschell wrote:
To the best of my ability I do not do things that are not fun.
Posting to forums is entirely optional on my part so my emotional state always ranges from the intrigued/amused to outright laughter.I thought that was the case. I just wanted to make sure we were still just debating. Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially in a text based environment. Couple that with the fact that this thread is in the back room, and you never now what you could get. Now lets go over some of our conversation thus far:
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free
This was obviously an opinion, which is what started the conversation off in the first place.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
spurred this comment:
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Which is not relevant to me, because Edision did not create electricity. Tesla specifically intended electricity to be free. In the same post we had this:
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Which does not change the fact that I think it should be free (opinion) or that it was intended to be free Also in the same post:
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
Which I don't see as relevant. It's in argument against my opinion, and the origional intent. It also asks for something tangible, which I also don't think "holds weight" because at this point we are still talking about things that are not tangible. I made this statement:
loctrice wrote:
The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your k
-
jschell wrote:
To the best of my ability I do not do things that are not fun.
Posting to forums is entirely optional on my part so my emotional state always ranges from the intrigued/amused to outright laughter.I thought that was the case. I just wanted to make sure we were still just debating. Sometimes it's hard to tell, especially in a text based environment. Couple that with the fact that this thread is in the back room, and you never now what you could get. Now lets go over some of our conversation thus far:
loctrice wrote:
I think information should be free
This was obviously an opinion, which is what started the conversation off in the first place.
loctrice wrote:
Internet, like electricity, was not intended to be a great revenue for companies.
spurred this comment:
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that Edison specifically intended that electricity was intended to produce money.
Which is not relevant to me, because Edision did not create electricity. Tesla specifically intended electricity to be free. In the same post we had this:
jschell wrote:
The internet has improved VASTLY since its inception. That improvement has been funded exclusively by those that believe that they can make money on it.
Which does not change the fact that I think it should be free (opinion) or that it was intended to be free Also in the same post:
jschell wrote:
Can you name one thing (tangible item) that you have that has improved over the years and which was not substantially or even entirely funded by the expected and real profit motive?
Which I don't see as relevant. It's in argument against my opinion, and the origional intent. It also asks for something tangible, which I also don't think "holds weight" because at this point we are still talking about things that are not tangible. I made this statement:
loctrice wrote:
The utility company where I live makes money as well. They also have a monopoly , but that is another matter. The social services will take your k
loctrice wrote:
Which is all well and good, but we are not talking about the system that is in place now. I specifically referenced the origional intent
of electricity. This is regardless of how it is now.Simple then...neither electricity nor the internet would have the same impact now if either of them had been 'free' (or whatever utopian ideals you are claiming existing during their inception) as based on what they were like then.
loctrice wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I said. And it's only part of what I said, and the keyword in that is "could".
And they "could" be beamed up by aliens as well. But in the US people don't starve to death.
loctrice wrote:
negates your own statement.
Nope. You provided a context of some other country where people are free to graze on farmers fields and then used that to drive an analogy about what you think happens in the US. We were not discussing slavery, child rearing practices, war, health issues or any of number of possibilities that "could" lead to actual starvation deaths somewhere in the world. We were discussing the availability of food and nothing else. And unlike the US there are places in the world where many people die of starvation because of that. Doesn't happen in the US.
loctrice wrote:
None of this has changed my opinion, nor has it changed the origional intent of the creators of these technologies.
Information should be free. Electricity was intended to be free, and so was the internet.First Information != electricity/internet. Second, my original point which your long analysis ignored was exactly that. The internet is a medium, it isn't itself information. Third it it the commericialization of electricity and the internet that has pushed them to their present form. Without that they would not exist as the do now. And the is especially true of the internet.
-
loctrice wrote:
Which is all well and good, but we are not talking about the system that is in place now. I specifically referenced the origional intent
of electricity. This is regardless of how it is now.Simple then...neither electricity nor the internet would have the same impact now if either of them had been 'free' (or whatever utopian ideals you are claiming existing during their inception) as based on what they were like then.
loctrice wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I said. And it's only part of what I said, and the keyword in that is "could".
And they "could" be beamed up by aliens as well. But in the US people don't starve to death.
loctrice wrote:
negates your own statement.
Nope. You provided a context of some other country where people are free to graze on farmers fields and then used that to drive an analogy about what you think happens in the US. We were not discussing slavery, child rearing practices, war, health issues or any of number of possibilities that "could" lead to actual starvation deaths somewhere in the world. We were discussing the availability of food and nothing else. And unlike the US there are places in the world where many people die of starvation because of that. Doesn't happen in the US.
loctrice wrote:
None of this has changed my opinion, nor has it changed the origional intent of the creators of these technologies.
Information should be free. Electricity was intended to be free, and so was the internet.First Information != electricity/internet. Second, my original point which your long analysis ignored was exactly that. The internet is a medium, it isn't itself information. Third it it the commericialization of electricity and the internet that has pushed them to their present form. Without that they would not exist as the do now. And the is especially true of the internet.
I don't believe that is the case. If electricity were to be available to everyone , and wireless at that, I believe it would be much more advanced than it is today. It's likely that our technology would also be more advanced. The same is true with the internet. I doubt you have experienced having difficulty coming by something to eat. Because I have, I can see how possible it would be. Perhaps changing this to 'go hungry' would be a better way to state it. I don't personally care if there are recorded statistics about people actually starving to death in the US, I happen to know first hand how it is possible and common for people to go hungry for long periods of time. (this can cause permanent organ damage, btw). Statistics or not, I have experienced it and seen it first hand so I know that it is true. If you provided sound links proving the opposite, because I have had the experience myself, I would still have the same opinion on the matter. A link[^] A link[^] "Infrequency" and "not recorded" does fall under 'could'. It's even more possible then getting hit in the head by an alien, or whatever the phrase was.