hxa7241

14 ms·

61.
by hxa7241 15y ago
Well, there are two things here: syntax, and lexical form or lexical syntax -- the underlying structure and the textual representation. The term 'lexical form/syntax' ought to be more popularly used, and hence make it clearer to talk about
62.
by hxa7241 15y ago
It is hypocrisy. We can safely assume a big fat newspaper wants there to be copyright laws. In which case they should obey those laws. The universal application of a rule -- i.e. fairness -- is probably the single most important principle o
63.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> Isn't that the purpose of patents? Well, . . . The purpose of patents is to get things invented that would not otherwise be invented -- if something costs significant time/effort/etc. to invent and those costs would be difficult to r
64.
by hxa7241 15y ago
But is that -- the substantiveness of work -- a reason to stop the copying of informational-goods? If they are indeed 'goods', more copies/variations/etc. makes them more available. Why stop that? One might say that the creator loses exclus
65.
by hxa7241 15y ago
What is this 'not nice'? What is it really saying? It seems, for want of a pleasanter term, a bit weasel-worded. It is trying to say 'you should not do that' but while pretending not to be so strong. If it has any real meaning -- any moral
66.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> you're not entitled to everything everyone else has That is inane and witless. It throws away any kind of intelligent informed view and reduces it all to a cheap emotive sloganeering. Rightsholders are not entitled to control what p
67.
by hxa7241 15y ago
improved: more M-ness to balance the arrow-ness and make it more distinctive, and -- more importantly -- made bolder to work at small sizes: https://plus.google.com/102359018718464872517/posts/LKJA5Uua...
68.
by hxa7241 15y ago
But in the case of copyright, that extra commercial value depends on us already accepting some copyright-like notion. One can only expect to command a copyright-level price for a copy if other people obey a copyright-like law to not make ot
69.
by hxa7241 15y ago
What is this 'protecting effort'? What does it even mean? You seem to be advancing this as grounds for justifying copyright, but to do that it must have some meaning independent from copyright. Otherwise it is going in circles. The substant
70.
by hxa7241 15y ago
Yes, but what is the basic intent ? It is to make/keep things reasonably available (in the constitution (USA) and/or the standard economic view) . . .
71.
by hxa7241 15y ago
The idea of selling copies of information is very basically broken. Half the time stuff is made but undersells copies because the producer did not find out no-one wanted it, and the other half, people are prevented from realising value that
72.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> evolution cares not at all for separation of concerns That is not really quite true. Look at human anatomy: it is structured into various discrete organs. That is separation of concerns. Evolution indeed appears to create, adjust, and
73.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> nor is there any provision preventing them from making it as difficult as they can Whilst that might be accurate in the detail of the law, it appears to contain something basically malfunctional. It seems to render the law effectively
74.
by hxa7241 15y ago
Yes, I do a translation of MiniLight http://www.hxa.name/minilight/ . It seems a bit large though -- roughly 600 lines of code, average. So that suggests a project of about 200 lines would probably be nearer optimal for learning.
75.
by hxa7241 15y ago
This seems really fundamental in large-scale software engineering, and perhaps in information 'economics' generally. It is about the right use of both design and evolution. You can only design with/for information you have in front of you (
76.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> Access to free copies of things someone else created and sells is not a physical law either. Well, this is the thing, it is pretty much a physical law. Information is nonrival: it is infinitely copyable and anyone can use it without
77.
by hxa7241 15y ago
If you want to understand, you have to start by doing one thing: stop taking copyright for granted, and imagine it as not a fixture of reality, not like a basic law of physics -- because it isn't. Copyright is a law we have made, and th
78.
by hxa7241 15y ago
The problem is there seems to be an enormous deficiency in the whole legal conception. The judgement goes on and on about originality and similarity and labour and skill. Certainly, that demanded a careful and fine examination. But really,
79.
by hxa7241 15y ago
What we want are ways of dealing with production and communication -- the notion of 'property' is almost exactly what we want to leave behind.
80.
by hxa7241 15y ago
Their interest is not 'having a conversation'. They have degenerated into monopolists. Let us clarify the game they play: One year they lobby government to strengthen enforcement. They say: piracy means they are not getting what the law say
81.
by hxa7241 15y ago
Copyright economics has one basic question: is the public getting plenty of good 'content'? And this has two components: 1, is plenty of stuff being produced?; and 2, does the public have easy and cheap access to it? This is just the standa
82.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> because the hen made the fucking bread, and the cow didn't Yes, we could say that work justifies payment (very simply and roughly). But that is not in dispute. It is that it does not justify payment by a particular means -- one that
83.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> The point is that this is my decision. Granting the creator such rights takes them away from everyone else. Why is that justified? Why should one person, the creator, be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do? > In
84.
by hxa7241 15y ago
If one rejects copyright, there is no 'stealing' of things of value, there is only copying -- since the work to produce things would be paid for through other means than restrictions. If someone argues against copyright, you cannot defend
85.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> but the truth of the matter is that without copyright laws, there would be a significant decline in the production of movies, music, games, and many other costly mediums It might seem very intuitive to say such things, but it is not t
86.
by hxa7241 15y ago
Thinking about it, yes, that seems OK. It is not clear what the real problem is. It just seems challenging because of the oddness. There is some question of privacy: it might be objectionable there. But that does not really bear upon the co
87.
by hxa7241 15y ago
> Where does the mindset come from Most importantly, it comes from thinking about why the current laws and conventions are justified. They are not simply there in reality. Why do we have them? It is not about justifying piracy, it is
88.
by hxa7241 15y ago
That is a description of technological advance. Means of accessing and communication information is improved, and in general that is most probably a gain. It disrupts some people expecting to continue as before, and that is bad. But we do n
89.
by hxa7241 15y ago
This whole 'entitlement' spiel is bogus. People expect to be able to get stuff because they know it is available . If each piece of TV/music/whatever had to be dug out of the ground, or hand-made, at great expense, they would not be avail
90.
by hxa7241 15y ago
It is because it is unstructured -- in the Dijkstra 'structured programming' sense. The flow is no longer nested, so you cannot skim over -- mentally fold -- parts. It also means the effects of transformations are less 'limited'. With struc

More ›