hxa7241

8 ms·

31.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Non-transferable/alienable rights is a valid possible adjustment. But it is or would be so solely on the basis of its actual economic effect. This simple clear economic approach -- Posner's broadly -- is the only sensible way to understand
32.
by hxa7241 14y ago
There should be another entry in the YC RFS http://ycombinator.com/rfs.html : 10. Kill Wall Street (etc.) We now have the technology to completely remake the financial system -- not just make 'banking' or whatever easier online, but a t
33.
by hxa7241 14y ago
This seems broadly to pass the Kant test on morality, so it could be said to be well-grounded. Something is immoral if it is contradictory when generalised -- that was the gist of Kant's view. And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fa
34.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Never respond. Always take the initiative. If something asks you about update/downloading/etc., reject it. You decide what to do and when, and you type the URL into the browser, or go to the normal menu/dialog/tool for updating. (This
35.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Ideally, for informational-goods, we first find out (somewhat) what people want, take payment, make the product, then release it for free use and copying. The economic problem here is fundamentally one of information and cooperation. As far
36.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Everyone should read the second paragraph of that article, so here is a link: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html -- it is one of the baselines for intelligent consideration of the subject, pro or anti. (relevant jargon ref:
37.
by hxa7241 14y ago
That's "Savile Row" -- one 'l' !
38.
by hxa7241 14y ago
See Grayling: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/10197-graylingsqu... "'ethics' is either the organised philosophical study of the concepts and principles involved in systems of morality [i.e. a 2nd-order enquiry of morality], or
39.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Informational goods covered by copyright are ones already made public.
40.
by hxa7241 14y ago
These are nonrival goods -- as many people can use and enjoy them as want to with no hindrance or loss to any. When there is plenty for everyone, why should any have a right to impose restrictions on others? The only plausible reason is a c
41.
by hxa7241 14y ago
People really ought to stop and examine this idea that copying information is somehow underneath unethical -- and that the special word 'unethical' can be uttered and that will tell people to behave. Information is a nonrival good: it is an
42.
by hxa7241 14y ago
It is not necessarily parasitical (and not at all dishonourable), because the only justification for imposing restrictions on people's freedom to share informational goods is the standard economic rationale, and we cannot a priori specify t
43.
by hxa7241 14y ago
So the best way to encourage innovation is give companies big fat monopolies like infinitely expandable copyright? It is of course the exact opposite: it is very difficult to innovate when you have guaranteed monopolies, because they are ef
44.
by hxa7241 14y ago
At least have an honest comparison: function render() { $return = null; if($condition1 && $condition2) $return = 2; elseif($condition1) $return = 1; elseif($condition3) $return = 3; else $return =
45.
by hxa7241 14y ago
The broad suggestion that indentation is somehow wrong is ill-advised. Sure, various of the refactorings given are sensible. But the basic problem is not indentation. If something can be simplified, simplify it. If something is too long, br
46.
by hxa7241 14y ago
'Fair'? That seems an invalid concept here. What is 'fairness', assuming a strict copyright system? -- it is a race with the qualifying runner, but where no others are allowed to run! That is a strange notion of fairness. But 'fairness' is
47.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Value and price are different things. Abstract objects -- i.e. informational goods -- certainly have value , it is just that they have practically zero price now. Price, and paying for things, is a way to regulate how limited resources
48.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Thinking of piracy as a tax is not really a very good way to understand things. Business is only able to sell copies at monopoly prices because the government gives them that ability through copyright law -- copyright is effectively a nega
49.
by hxa7241 14y ago
This is ultimately more by luck than judgement. Because the main legal perspective is utterly, fundamentally flawed. The notion that there is a principled difference between idea and expression simply does not work with software. In softwar
50.
by hxa7241 14y ago
This is bizarre. Not for wrongness -- but because it is baffling that what is right about it should not be obvious and taken for granted. Business is always, and has always been, about avoiding competition. One can start by recalling Ad
51.
by hxa7241 14y ago
> The question of avoiding that accidental complexity at the first try is a separate question. But is that not the more important question? -- how much effort it takes to design software (which surely is the gist of Brooks' observation)
52.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Well, it should really say something more like 'essential complexity in software development '. The size of the software does not simply, directly represent the effort -- making compacter code might take more effort, and it is only becau
53.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Kay's assertion seems incredible -- he really has to prove it. It does not square with at least some research and what Brooks most perspicaciously noted in 'No Silver Bullet' -- that there is essential complexity in software, and it is the
54.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Fine, yes, functionally -- and that is probably the most important thing -- but not really so interesting for speculative discussion. It works, but seems to subtract more than it adds. It looks a little less like itself, and a little more l
55.
by hxa7241 14y ago
> 3 The main text is too light and low-contrast: it looks like it is frightened of being there and trying to run away and hide! (and so the most big and powerful thing on the page is the footer, which does not seem the right priority...
56.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Put the color back (top bar and background) -- that is pretty much the entire graphical identity of the site (i.e. a distinctive, recognisable visual character).
57.
by hxa7241 14y ago
> More money has got to change hands. No, quite the opposite. If you really want to be bold about inventing the future, money is one of the things that needs to be replaced. The internet is, in a general sense, a technology for cooperat
58.
by hxa7241 14y ago
Because whether various people think they are being paid as much as they should, and how much is actually being produced, are different things. If you are asking for special provisions from the public, prove the public gets a good deal. How
59.
by hxa7241 14y ago
> How can we stand for this? Because, in a single concept, these are nonrival goods. We would want there to be excess value created over what they cost to produce. All we need to do is cover the costs of sufficient production. But the
60.
by hxa7241 14y ago
The backbone of this seems to be complaining about musicians having things difficult and not making as much money as they should. And accompanied by lots of numbers and information. The problem is, it is in itself irrelevant. Why should any

More ›