Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:which is better (Score 3, Insightful) 326

by fryjs (#32179674) Attached to: Possible Breakthrough In Hydrogen Energy
Yes, how horrible it would be to have another "industrial revolution" type of growth where the abundance of cheap energy allows another massive increase in standard of living. If you are actually concerned about the long term survival of the species, we need ever cheaper and easier sources of energy to expand into the galaxy, and the quicker the better (in terms of odds).

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 2, Insightful) 386

by fryjs (#31787250) Attached to: The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms

Because an idea is not property, it is an arrangement of neurons in your head. If one person takes a piece of property, he deprives everyone else of the use of that property... However, the same idea can exist simultaneously in every single mind in existence, and no person is deprived of the ability to hold that idea in their head by the fact that someone else is also holding that idea in their head. The natural, default state of an idea is that it is freely available to *everyone*.

But copyright doesn't (or at least shouldn't) cover ideas, it covers creative works. Millions of people could have the same idea and still no one would be producing copies of other's creative works. So copyright can't prevent anyone having ideas and producing creative works from them.

However, we recognize that certain people have ideas that most people couldn't have by themselves. In general, these ideas are useful to society, so we want these people to keep having them. In order to free these people from the distraction of having to earn a living by conventional means and allow them to spend all of their time coming up with more of their ideas, we create a mechanism by which people can profit from them... A completely artificial concept of imaginary property. We allow these people to be the only ones who may use their idea for profit for enough time to keep checks in their mailbox till they come up with their next idea. After this time passes, the idea reverts to its default state of being available to everyone.

Again, copyright shouldn't be about ideas but creative works. A creative work is neither imaginary or artificial, it's an idea realised by creative expression: the creator's work, so it is in the ownership of the creator by default. And so copyright protects the creator's property. Ideas are never denied to anyone.

The reality is, when you come up with a creative work, you do the original work of creating it *once.* Most people have to work continuously to earn a continuous living. What gives a creative person the right to earn a perpetual living off of a single act of creation?

The fact that it's the creative person's creative work. Their work, not anyone elses. Their copyright is not preventing anyone from creating their own creative works, just directly copying the creative works of others.

Comment: Re:Interesting (Score 0) 386

by fryjs (#31786398) Attached to: The Economist Weighs In For Shorter Copyright Terms
Why are you, or anyone else, owed free access to other people's work? Copyright to me is about protecting my ideas, it's not a trade I make, it's about the state protecting my property. Now I think that if I want that protection I should have to pay for it, and be required to renew copyrights periodicially, however I reject your claim to a right to my work.

Comment: Re:That's right, because handwriting on screens ru (Score 1) 230

by fryjs (#31377044) Attached to: Microsoft "Courier" Pictures
Why do you think that the courier is supposed to be used whilst sitting at your desk? I don't know about you, but I frequently grab a notepad, and go to a location that is not my desk to sketch out ideas/concepts/etc. I don't want to be using a keyboard for that, I want exactly the interface that the courier provides: a pen and surface to write on. (Currently I have an iRex, but the extra features of the courier will have me buying one in a heartbeat) Not every computing device must replace your desktop system, there are a myriad of situations where other interfaces are much more appropriate, and a myriad more where it can supplement other devices.

Comment: Re:The "free market" is "people"! (Score 4, Insightful) 249

by fryjs (#30308766) Attached to: Net Neutrality Seen Through the Telegraph
I (as a free-market advocate) consider law enforcement and regulation as two very different things. Law enforcment being the retaliatory use of force by the government against people who have violated the individual rights of another (theft, violence, etc) by initiated the use of force. I consider law enforcement a fundamental requirement of a free society (protection from looters and thugs), but regulation the antithesis of a free society (initiating the use of force to control people).

In my view, regulation is not law enforcement, it is the initiation of force by government against people who have not (and are not reasonably predicted to) violated anyone's rights, with the intent of getting that individual or organisation to behave in a desired manner. Now this doesn't seem so bad, when it is applied to something like net neutrality which seems like a good idea, however the principle is appalling to me: using force to get what you want. This is especially true when you have a government known to be at least influenced (if not controlled) by a few powerful people and organisations.

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...