PDA

View Full Version : Public access/Private exclusion



JG14_Josf
05-27-2007, 08:03 AM
Users/Abusers,

I can own up to my abuse of the current state of the system whereby a topic for discussion is discussed.

Crumpp AKA Kettenhunde does not (according to him) appreciate me moving his public access information data from the site where it has been published to this site, yet, I continue to do this (abuse his request to not do this) anyway.

What can I say?

Poor Nancy?

How about:

I am not cutting and pasting his' information. I can't even rationalize (make believe) that information can be owned. I've tried. Even the most rabid proponents of copy write laws can't win their crusades against reality without resorting to brute force or fraud. Make believe is make believe; forever and always.

I can offer a half way compromise type olive branch by avoiding any specific quotes published by the username Crumpp.

I cannot avoid linking (in some way) the information (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13748&start=165) to which this discussion intends to discuss.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1180205420_ldratio.jpg

In my own words (avoiding a direct quote from the source of some interesting information that desires to remain anonymous?):

I have a way of looking at charts that may help anyone else if they have a difficult time seeing what is represented in the chart.

I think in terms of my own flying experiences and it occurs to me to eliminate as many variables as possible.

See if you can follow the viewpoint on your own.

This will run kind of like a story line (perhaps even entertain):

I drive up the twisty mountain road ending at a park on the edge of mountain overlooking the eastern extremities of the Los Angeles basin. The street name is Playground and the pilots call the park Launch.

The glider is taken off the top of the truck by hand and placed on the ground to be assembled. Before unpacking a quick stroll out to the edge, near the launch, is made to get an idea as to the impending flight. How much activity is in store for today? Are the weather services currently accurate? Is traffic heavy?

Looking out into the basin, and the smog, is a sight not to be missed by any aspiring carver upper of air mass (molecules all bunched up). There is, quite literally, a very large playground to be seen; one that extends as far as the eye and the imagination can see out into the distant hazy horizon and on up into heaven.

Approaching the edge, a necessity for gaining the desired information, land begins to fall off as air begins to speed up all on its own.

Someone can be seen taking off. The sight doesn't look (precisely) like an elevator ride (in a San-Fransico high rise) unless, perhaps, you have been on one.

This isn't Torrey Pines.

http://www.willswing.com/images/menus/prod/prod_sport2_sub03.jpg

The reader may wonder, or so the story goes, what this guy is on about this time.

It is not impossible to set-up a flight whereby the aircraft is motionless relative to the ground having no strings attached. The aircraft is literally motionless.

That is what I propose to illustrate, with your help, as an endeavor is made to make sense of that chart posted above.

The idea is to imagine flying on any place on that chart and do so from an angle of view that eliminates any acceleration relative to gravity i.e. motionless relative to the ground.

A fight instructor will quiz you on this if you ever intend to learn how to fly. In fact; flying involves two references to the ground that are inevitable. One is take-off. One is landing. Flying is the stuff in between and I can attest to the fact that flying can be motionless relative to the ground. We called it parking.

Take two plots on the chart, for example, any two will do, I will take the two whereby a label is attached to each of those two plots on the chart.

A. L/D Max
B. CL Max

Parking at L/D Max on a ridge is not the same thing as parking at CL Max on the same ridge. Something has to change during a flight whereby the same glider on the same ridge can park at L/D Max and the same glider on the same ridge can park at CL Max.

One thing that changes is AOA.

I've set-up a topic for discussion. I did not intend to insult anyone but my guess is that insulting people is as inevitable as breathing (if one is to continue living).

It is possible, in my mind, to envision any situation on that mountain whereby any plane can park (including any WWII fighter plane). Some things have to change.

Some things never change.

Poor Nancy

LStarosta
05-27-2007, 09:24 AM
Dude, peyote is illegal. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

JG14_Josf
06-01-2007, 10:47 AM
I don't want to completely waste anyone's time here (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13748&start=180) but can anyone point me to a research forum called AAW II. I can't find it.

Crash_Moses
06-01-2007, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I don't want to completely waste anyone's time here (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13748&start=180) but can anyone point me to a research forum called AAW II. I can't find it.

I think they're hiding from raaaid, and now...you.

AKA_TAGERT
06-01-2007, 10:57 AM
Kittens are cool.. They make great targets

JG14_Josf
06-01-2007, 11:02 AM
Guys,

I can understand your need for attention. Please understand my request is a simple one. Do you know where a research forum called AAW II can be found?

How about this: instead of answering the question and instead of ignoring the question why don't you just respond with some vague and irrelevant insult with thinly veiled innuendo?

Either choice will be fine.

Old_Canuck
06-01-2007, 11:27 AM
It's time for ... REVENGE OF THE CHART MONKEYS. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQME8mx4DMo)

JG14_Josf
06-01-2007, 12:29 PM
OK so...when is this forum title going to be changed to more accurately reflect the forum content?

How about:

Troll Land

Anyone have anything concerning the topic?

How about a link to the information requested. It concerns, of all things, WWII fighter combat.

With a bit of imagination it can also concern simulated WWII fighter combat.

Imagine that!

Daiichidoku
06-01-2007, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
OK so...when is this forum title going to be changed to more accurately reflect the forum content?

How about:

Troll Land

Anyone have anything concerning the topic?

How about a link to the information requested. It concerns, of all things, WWII fighter combat.

With a bit of imagination it can also concern simulated WWII fighter combat.

Imagine that!


TrollLand was offically neutral during wwII hostilities, and mostly isolationaist as well, although they bought signifigant numbers of spitfires, la7s, 109G-2s, and mustangs for self defence (although the stangs were kept in storage until such time as there was a war they needed to win)

slipBall
06-01-2007, 01:29 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Guys,

I can understand your need for attention. Please understand my request is a simple one. Do you know where a research forum called AAW II can be found?



Are you certain of the forum name....do you know what AAW is short for?

JG14_Josf
06-01-2007, 01:38 PM
Are you certain of the forum name....do you know what AAW is short for?

No.

I did ask.

Zeus-cat
06-01-2007, 04:16 PM
I am not cutting and pasting his' information. I can't even rationalize (make believe) that information can be owned. I've tried. Even the most rabid proponents of copy write laws can't win their crusades against reality without resorting to brute force or fraud. Make believe is make believe; forever and always.

So if I went to another forum and used the name JG14_Josf and pretended to be you, you would be no OK with that?

JG14_Josf
06-01-2007, 04:48 PM
So if I went to another forum and used the name JG14_Josf and pretended to be you, you would be no OK with that?

Zeus-cat,

I would not.

Do you know the meaning of universality?

If I defraud someone, then, I automatically confess or volunteer to condone that behavior. In other words I, by my actions, show to anyone who cares to look that I have decided that defrauding someone is permissible behavior.

I can claim that it is only permissible for me to behave that way. Did you conclude by my writing that I condone fraud? Did I say something that causes you to ask your question?

Have I defrauded someone in your eyes? Have I defrauded someone and I have yet to discover this fact?

I am curious.

Zeus-cat
06-01-2007, 05:57 PM
You said that you don't believe in copyrights. You claim that no one owns information. That is the basis of my challenge to you.

If no one owns information, then I can claim to be you and no one could stop me as all I am doing is using information associated with you, but not owned by you.

If no one owns information then you could make the code for this game available for download on a website and claim that everyone has a right to use it free as it would be wrong to charge for it as it is only information.

If no one owns information then you could download all the campaigns that I have made, remove my name from them, put your name on them and distribute them under your name without feeling the least bit guilty about that. However, I claim they are copyrighted to me as I created them and have published them (electronically) under my name (Zeus-cat). Even though I don't charge for their use, I own them and they are my property and copyright law backs that up.

XyZspineZyX
06-01-2007, 06:06 PM
In this specific case:

can this person claim to be the one who generated this information?

regardless of the existensial hoo-ha

Did he make that info?

Or was it made 75 years ago, by somebody else?

If it was, then he has no right to claim ownership of it, in my opinion. He has taken it and made it available on his website- but that doesn't mean he owns it, unless he has legal claim to it

re-posting that information, presumably in the public's reach to begin with, has nothing wrong associated with it as far as I can see. It just seems like a little bit of tears over hurt feelings

edit:

Information can certainly be owned, however. Take this flight simulation for example

The information used to generate and run it is owned by somebody, without a doubt

proprietary procedures and formulas are used every day in hundreds of thousands of businesses- and that information is owned

Take the code to a security system at a bank- if that information is given away to somebody unauthorised to use it, then a crime has been committed

Selling secrets was a big deal in the cold war- that information was sold. Taken form the USA and given to it's rivals in world affairs and also in big business. That information was owned

I myself own my identity, and all the information that makes it up

Perhaps an odd concept to some, but a real one, nonetheless

JG14_Josf
06-01-2007, 07:32 PM
You said that you don't believe in copyrights. You claim that no one owns information. That is the basis of my challenge to you.

Zeus-cat,

How does an understanding of reality turn into me being a fraud? I don't see it.

You seem to be (from my view) connecting the concept of intellectual property rights with the concept of fraud and a particular fraud that involves an impersonation intending to cause an injury of some kind.

Have you ever downloaded a program or song from anywhere on the internet knowing that your actions were avoiding a transfer of wealth from you to the producer of that software?

If you have not, ever, then I can understand your position better. I personally try to pay for all my software. I do so because I want those people to continue making good software. I have a problem with the concept of intellectual property rights because such a notion requires enforcement in today's world. The better producers of good software know how to enforce their own rights without resorting to traditional law enforcement.

What this sounds like to me is a case of me not signing onto capitalism as some god given right or inherent economic instinct of mankind. And for my lack of apology for capitalism I'm being accused of fraud.

That is my take on this.

Zeus-cat
06-02-2007, 06:16 AM
I never said you did anything wrong or accused you of fraud. But if you don't believe in copyrights then there is nothing stopping you from doing what I said you could do. You don't see it as wrong because it would not be stealing.

If people can't own information, then people can't claim to own the rights to software, books, music, movies, television shows and even artwork. All of those can be digitized and turned into information. A lot of people make their living creating information. If they can't claim it as their property, many of them will stop doing it.

Taking it a step further, even a patent for a manufacturing process is not protected under your views. If my company develops a new drug you would claim anyone can make it if they figure out the formula. You could then make that drug and probably sell it for a lot less as you didn't do the research on the thousands of other compounds that I tried before finding the one that worked.

You starting to see that copyrights and other intellectual property rights actually make things better and peoplke more productive than if there were no such protections?

JG14_Josf
06-02-2007, 08:32 AM
I never said you did anything wrong or accused you of fraud. But if you don't believe in copyrights then there is nothing stopping you from doing what I said you could do. You don't see it as wrong because it would not be stealing.

Zeus-cat,

I can exchange information with you as I read it. Why be so contradictory?

A. You don't accuse me of doing anything wrong
B. There is nothing stopping me from doing what you think is wrong
C. You think I think something wrong
D. The only reason you haven't accused me of doing something wrong is that you don't have to, since, you already know I am capable of doing something wrong according to you.
E. You accuse me of thinking something wrong that leads to doing something wrong so your accusation of me thinking something wrong is merely pre-dating my doing something wrong.

You accuse me of thinking things I do not think.

Example:


But if you don't believe in copyrights then there is nothing stopping you from doing what I said you could do.

How do you get to that statement as if it were a fact? I, the person you accuse, do not do as you publish above. I, for example, believe that copyrights exist in a legal' form.

Therefore, unlike you state, and unlike your accusation, I do believe in copyrights.

How did you get to a point where you can confidently accuse me of not believing' in copyrights?

Did you arrive at that point from reading the following?


I am not cutting and pasting his' information. I can't even rationalize (make believe) that information can be owned. I've tried. Even the most rabid proponents of copy write laws can't win their crusades against reality without resorting to brute force or fraud. Make believe is make believe; forever and always.

Information cannot be owned. That isn't the same thing as saying a copyright law cannot be enforced through punishment, fraud, and coercion.

Information cannot be owned.

Perhaps our failure to communicate is centered upon a miscommunication concerning the word own'.

Information, from my perspective, passes through human perception. Information cannot be owned. Information can be stored in human memory. Information can be stored on hard drives and paper. Human beings can own hard drives. Human beings can own paper. Are we continuing to find a huge gap in how you think, what you believe, and how I think and what I believe?


If people can't own information, then people can't claim to own the rights to software, books, music, movies, television shows and even artwork. All of those can be digitized and turned into information. A lot of people make their living creating information. If they can't claim it as their property, many of them will stop doing it.

Claiming information as property is a fine thing to do; in my opinion. Note how that last sentence exists it is my property. This is so funny from my viewpoint. I have a slight smile now. Sometimes this type of conversation has me in stitches. Sometimes I cry. I am an emotional being human.

If someone does things for pecuniary reward alone, then, naturally they will only do things that are rewarded with pecuniary currency.

I don't think that a true artist creates art for pecuniary currency. They create art because they can nothing stops them. Perhaps if they starve to death, then, they stop.

Claiming my words above are my property is a fine thing. It is absurd but it is a fine thing.


Taking it a step further, even a patent for a manufacturing process is not protected under your views. If my company develops a new drug you would claim anyone can make it if they figure out the formula. You could then make that drug and probably sell it for a lot less as you didn't do the research on the thousands of other compounds that I tried before finding the one that worked.

Taking your perspective a step further on top of a compounding error is going to accomplish what exactly?

A. Ownership of information is ludicrous.
B. Claiming ownership is one thing enforcing it is another thing entirely
C. People will continue to do whatever they decide to do and pecuniary reward is merely one of many motivating factors in life

Ahhhh, your sentence intends to tell me (and anyone else reading this) what I think according to you again.


Taking it a step further, even a patent for a manufacturing process is not protected under your views.

That is false and you are now publicly spreading falsehood about me. I don't appreciate it. Your information is damaging my life. What can I do about it?

Copyright laws exist in the form of pieces of paper pretending to justify someone injuring someone else on purpose. You do not have to see the world from my viewpoint and you do not have to cease and desist pretending to know how I see things and then publish your lies about me. A manufacturing process can be protected under my views and such protection can be accomplished in many ways not limited to the force of illegitimate law based upon the might makes right perception/enforcement belief'.

Your caricature or portrayal of me is incorrect at best.

I do not leave manufacturing processes unprotected in my view. That is a step backwards piled upon two or three previous false steps.


If my company develops a new drug you would claim anyone can make it if they figure out the formula. You could then make that drug and probably sell it for a lot less as you didn't do the research on the thousands of other compounds that I tried before finding the one that worked.

There are many ways in which people manage to get along or not get along in the world were people have existed and will exist. Stating your perceived world as being the only perceivable world is a bit over the top from my view. I could call it megalomania. That would also be over the top.

Do you know about the relatively newly publicized concept called: Open Source'?

We can go down this path. I am all for it. In fact; I think it is inevitable. I'm playing with words. I don't think that you are suffering from megalomania; however I think that it is your type of thinking that can lead to people suffering the insufferable for doing nothing wrong whatsoever.

I also notice, at this time, that you have not answered my question concerning your own behavior concerning Copyright laws'. Have you ever knowingly received something protected by "Copyright Laws" without transferring wealth to the holder of the "Copyright Law"?

I don't know how else to ask this question without delving into the lingo supporting the perception of information ownership.

I can try again:

Have you ever received information knowing that the person producing the information expected a measure of wealth from you as part of the exchange?

Example:

Have you ever received a copy of a popular song and listened to that song and received some measure of value without sending some measure of value to the producer of the song?

How about this angle:

Are you sending your royalty checks to the inventor of the wheel?

No?

Why did that guy invent the wheel if he didn't receive royalty checks?


You could then make that drug and probably sell it for a lot less as you didn't do the research on the thousands of other compounds that I tried before finding the one that worked.

This is the capitalism' is responsible for all the good in the world today theory'.

Isn't it?

The funny thing about that theory is how the proponents of that theory drop that theory the moment anything bad is linked to capitalism. At that point in time the capitalist apologist blames the state.

Who does the capitalist go to when someone steals' their property rights?

Rest assured that I have nothing against voluntary capitalism. I have nothing against voluntary socialism. I do have a problem with people volunteering to create my beliefs and thought in their own words - publicly. I do not PM the moderators.


You starting to see that copyrights and other intellectual property rights actually make things better and peoplke more productive than if there were no such protections?

I can see the ends being good in some cases. The ends do not justify the means. Ignoring all the dirty bath water, to hack up an old saying, doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out and keep only the dirty water.

The profit motive motivates. That is easy to understand. The profit motive is not the only motivator. Can you understand what I am trying to communicate accurately so that you stop suggesting (publicly) that I think or believe things that I do not believe or think?

XyZspineZyX
06-02-2007, 08:42 AM
I work on proprietary things at my job

How we do them is information- time for a cycle, temperature, condition, technique

All that information is my company's property

I am sorry, but this information is owned. there really is no debate

I feel you are over-simplifying, Josef. The motive is immaterial, it is a detail whose presence or absence really has no impact on the result

JG14_Josf
06-02-2007, 09:05 AM
I am sorry, but this information is owned.

No need to be sorry unless you have a link to the requested information and you won't let me see it for some reason. You still don't need to be sorry; however - I will be thinking that you are sorry - if that is the case.

Property and ownership are curious concepts. We can discuss these things too.

Philipscdrw
06-02-2007, 09:42 AM
If information is not owned, Josf, can I have the information of your bank account details? And the profile of your car keys? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Copyright law was invented, back in the 18th century I think, to stop people who owned printing presses from making their own copy of the bestsellers. It was decided that, if a publisher was paying an author to write a book, they should be the only ones to make money from it if it turns out to be a success. Otherwise the back-street presses would cherry-pick the popular books at no cost to themselves.

XyZspineZyX
06-02-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am sorry, but this information is owned.

No need to be sorry unless you have a link to the requested information and you won't let me see it for some reason. You still don't need to be sorry; however - I will be thinking that you are sorry - if that is the case.

Property and ownership are curious concepts. We can discuss these things too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really sure what you mean about the "sorry" business

But as far as property and ownership goes, I'm simply not going to be discussing politics (I see this being touched on already), I want that to be up front

I will say that the nature of humans is selfishness, and that also means we want to "own" things. This is mine, that is yours, don't take my stuff. There's really not much to debate about that in my opinion, from the cradle to the grave, we deal in varying levels of being selfish

BfHeFwMe
06-02-2007, 11:23 AM
I'd tell you, but than I'd have to exclude you.

Allaboutw...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

M_Gunz
06-02-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am sorry, but this information is owned.

No need to be sorry unless you have a link to the requested information and you won't let me see it for some reason. You still don't need to be sorry; however - I will be thinking that you are sorry - if that is the case.

Property and ownership are curious concepts. We can discuss these things too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really sure what you mean about the "sorry" business

But as far as property and ownership goes, I'm simply not going to be discussing politics (I see this being touched on already), I want that to be up front

I will say that the nature of humans is selfishness, and that also means we want to "own" things. This is mine, that is yours, don't take my stuff. There's really not much to debate about that in my opinion, from the cradle to the grave, we deal in varying levels of being selfish </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How selfishly do you value your own time and charge others for it, aka "work"?

If it takes someone months of time to gather, compile and add further notes to some old info,
some of which perhaps they had to pay to gain copy of and then someone else wants to say that
would be free then the one who spent those months becomes just what?

Don't the Forum Rules cover Crummps' situation? What happens if he makes complaint to UBI?
Somehow I don't think that any bandwagon of whiners will force any change in policy.

M_Gunz
06-02-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
I work on proprietary things at my job

How we do them is information- time for a cycle, temperature, condition, technique

All that information is my company's property

I am sorry, but this information is owned. there really is no debate

I feel you are over-simplifying, Josef. The motive is immaterial, it is a detail whose presence or absence really has no impact on the result

I really must have misunderstood your later post!
You have a whole vital segment to progressive business nailed right there!

For all that matter though, there's a lot of ridiculous IPA's required nowadays for even
peripheral work to technology. Some are fitting and some are designed for windfall.

Zeus-cat
06-02-2007, 12:02 PM
I don't have time to answer all of the things you posted JG14_Josf.

I didn't answer your question on having software or music that I downloaded without paying for it as it wasn't part of the conversation we were having. To be honest, I have done that in the past. It was wrong for me to do that. I don't do it anymore and I won't assist others in doing it. To the best of my knowledge, the only music or software on my machine that I don't have a license for is Winrar. I forgot I had it as I quit using it after the trial period ended. I will be deleting it.

M_Gunz
06-02-2007, 12:27 PM
It's not smart to play with 'warez' as you may be loading a back door or virus hacked in.
And at least some media files can also contain autorun programs, virus emails use them so
it's a run at your own risk net out there and who you play with might just shoot ya one day.

JG14_Josf
06-02-2007, 01:03 PM
If information is not owned, Josf, can I have the information of your bank account details? And the profile of your car keys?

Phillipscdrw,

I get this, I think, let me know if I can relate this to you accurately. You are so much more intelligent that I am that you are in the curious position to be able to ask a question that has only one answer and you happen to know that answer while I am too stupid to ever know that answer; hence the little crazy eyed face intending to represent me the nutcase.

How did I do?

As to your leading question: I have no money in my bank account but I do have a lot of debt so you are welcome to all of it. The truck is in my drive way, try to take it I'll leave the keys in it. If you succeed in taking it, then, does that mean that you now own it?

The profile of my truck keys can be found, perhaps, in some manner other than asking me for them. I'll leave the keys in the ignition just for you. I really don't feel, think, or believe that I own the profile of my truck key information. You, in your infinite wisdom, so much above me as it is, can think, feel, and believe anything your heart desires. I think it is a black heart. I own my own opinion. Now you know what my opinion is; in fact assuming that you can read.


Copyright law was invented, back in the 18th century I think, to stop people who owned printing presses from making their own copy of the bestsellers. It was decided that, if a publisher was paying an author to write a book, they should be the only ones to make money from it if it turns out to be a success. Otherwise the back-street presses would cherry-pick the popular books at no cost to themselves.


Thanks for the history lesson. Who pays royalties to the inventor of copyright law? No need to feel obligated to answer that question. This topic was started by me for a specific reason having to do with Fighter Combat in WWII and things related to that topic.

Philipscdrw
06-02-2007, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If information is not owned, Josf, can I have the information of your bank account details? And the profile of your car keys?

Phillipscdrw,

I get this, I think, let me know if I can relate this to you accurately. You are so much more intelligent that I am that you are in the curious position to be able to ask a question that has only one answer and you happen to know that answer while I am too stupid to ever know that answer; hence the little crazy eyed face intending to represent me the nutcase.

How did I do?

As to your leading question: I have no money in my bank account but I do have a lot of debt so you are welcome to all of it. The truck is in my drive way, try to take it I'll leave the keys in it. If you succeed in taking it, then, does that mean that you now own it?

The profile of my truck keys can be found, perhaps, in some manner other than asking me for them. I'll leave the keys in the ignition just for you. I really don't feel, think, or believe that I own the profile of my truck key information. You, in your infinite wisdom, so much above me as it is, can think, feel, and believe anything your heart desires. I think it is a black heart. I own my own opinion. Now you know what my opinion is; in fact assuming that you can read.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hold off a bit Josf - the " http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif " thing wasn't intended to represent you. By convention, smilies indicate the reaction or mood of the one writing the post, to enrich text-based communications as ersatz facial expressions. In my post the " http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif " represents my own attitude to debates on freedom of information, particularly when it seems to really be about freedom to take and distrubute other people's work... in fact that was the whole point of my post.


Who pays royalties to the inventor of copyright law? Hah, that should be written on a t-shirt.

By the way, about 'parking' aircraft so they are motionless relative to the ground - that was done by B-29s at airfields in the Phillipines (I think - somewhere in the Pacific anyway) during storms, where the wind would be hundreds of miles per hour for several hours. They found the best way to keep the large aircraft intact was to turn into the wind, the engines started, and the pilot would just 'fly' it, steering it through the turbulence in the wind, until the storm ended. I'm not sure if the aircraft would leave the ground - if it did it was by a couple of inches. It would remain like this for hours. Must have done havok to the engines...

JG14_Josf
06-02-2007, 02:26 PM
when it seems to really be about freedom to take and distrubute other people's work

Philipscdrw,

So now because you have corrected my error I am to understand that you are willing to entertain information (and pay for it) that refutes your present false perception stated above?

My perception, on the other hand, continues to be that your mind is completely made up and your mind is anything but crazed' concerning any discussions on intellectual property rights that seems to really be about freedom to take and distrubute [sic] other people's work' because from you perspective you will always be absolutely right and anyone suggesting otherwise, according to you, are only worthy of ridicule.

My perception stems from past and present experience. I can elaborate if your next response suggests that such an effort is welcome.

On the other hand: if, in fact, your crazed' emotion concerning any effort on your part to understand a perception that so far escapes your ability to conceptualize is genuine, then, in all seriousness concerning the topic, and reserving some measure of humor, I can link many sources of where my viewpoint has similar manifestations besides the already mentioned concept now known as: "Open Source".

Did you read "Open Source" and set it aside as something unrelated to the current off-topic topic?

Hint: "Open Source" directly contradicts "Intellectual property right theory/doctrine". There may be no better way of communicating the opposites in reality. One is one thing. The other is the opposite thing.

Is that sufficient?

Is it accurate?

Do you simply prefer to remain crazed' concerning the opposite viewpoint to this thing that may, or may not, go by the name of "Intellectual property right theory/doctrine"?

Can I prop up my apology for Open Source reality by sighting more examples?

How about language?

Are you paying royalties to the inventor of language?

How does this theory of yours handle the tendency for inventors to die off suddenly or gradually? Are payments made to his or her airs?

P.S. That is a very interesting story and the engines may have suffered damage from debris? What is the stall speed on those planes? How fast is the fastest known natural wind?

231 miles per hour (372 kilometers per hour) (http://www.mountwashington.org/about/visitor/recordwind.php)

WhtBoy
06-02-2007, 02:47 PM
Josf,
I, and probably others, am not sure what your position is so here's a few questions that may help...

Do you believe that I should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price I wish? What about give it away for free?

What about the same situation but replace book with music CD or movie DVD?

--Outlaw.

DuxCorvan
06-02-2007, 02:53 PM
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/frankly_my_dear.jpg

deepo_HP
06-02-2007, 03:23 PM
hi all,

information can't be 'owned'.
information is never static, but includes a sender and a recipient. the 'flow' of information is a process of communicating, information is part of communication, described in distinct amount.
you can 'own' information as a trader, like agencies, which isn't about the information, but the way of transfer it.

information is the source of knowledge. knowledge is static, it is individual, as it is one's own interpretation of information.
you can't own knowledge, because knowledge changes to another interpretation, when transferred. knowledge is never the same for anyone, and you only can own, what could be owned by someone else.
information must be public and accessible for all, else individual knowledge can't be built.

one can use knowledge and information for creation. creation is deducted from knowledge and it's abstraction. creation is always new and can be itself abstract, descriptive or concrete.
one can own one's creation, infact nobody else can!
that's why creation is protected as soon as it is born.
in a more general sense creation can be done by groups also.

developing a method is not a creation, but can be protected by a patent, which confirms the description of the method to be new.

the protection of creations and methods is slightly different in europe and overseas.
however, the creation can't change the owner, in europe not even after death (till mouldering, which is 70 years by definition), it will always be his intellectual property. the owner can sell the rights to use his creation. this right is the copyright.
the owner of a patent can give licenses to use the description, even sell the patent - it is not bound to his individual person.

protecting creations and methods is for sure way right. else publishing won't happen freely, information would flow less and knowledge come to a stand-still. not to speak of art as an even higher level of creation.
putting copyright over intellectual property, or lowering standards for protect-worthy patents just for commercial purpose is for sure only in the interest of marketing. like giving patents for software - which is already protected by copyright as soon as it is created.
that's the great thing about 'open source'... it is protected for it's creation, but not restricted in further development.

JG14_Josf
06-02-2007, 03:27 PM
Do you believe that I should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price I wish? What about give it away for free?

Outlaw?,

Yes

Yes

Setting aside my belief, in the effort to eliminate me from any adverse and unwanted attention focused upon me, the fact is that people can and will steal' property if that is what you prefer to call it or believe it to be.

How about a simple objective observation of the physical transfers of matter?

The book in question is transferred onto a record of some kind, say, paper. The writer sends the original to anther person, say, a publisher. What does the publisher send the writer; more paper?

Eventually the publisher and the writer agree to some transfer of some kind. Perhaps they agree to something and then someone does something disagreeable when it turns out that the book in question is a best seller rather than just a bunch of paper with ink on it.

The publisher, if you pardon the language, rapes the author.

I suppose this could be considered as a violation of property rights.

The author may not have the same opinion as the publisher.

Will numbers help?

Suppose the author was sent 1 with two zeros on paper; or in digital form. Suppose that the publisher spent 1 with 5 zeros to mass produce the intellectual property. Suppose that the people receiving the books sent the publisher a total of 1 with 7 zeros for their copies of the intellectual property.

The author nets 100

The book partners (they don't actually own the book) receive permission to read the book.

The publisher nets 10000000 minus 100000 for a total of (getting out the calculator) 9,900,000

All is fine in the world of intellectual property rights; at least according to the publisher.

The Author is inspired to find a new publisher.

I'm not the one imagining that property rights do not exist. I'm trying to observe what is going on and my efforts include communication to and from you to me. I can only control the part from me.

Take the above example and this time the Author publishes the same book (time is rewound) on his website for free and sells advertisement space based upon how many times the book is downloaded.

Is it possible that the Author could net more than 100?

How much does the publisher net in that example?

Who is the counterfeiter?

Does the term counterfeit apply to this type of discussion (off-topic)?

Philipscdrw
06-02-2007, 04:06 PM
I do actually give money to the inventor of language, Josf, as a proportion of my earnings.

I don't understand why you think I'm ridiculing you when that was never and is not the case. Ridiculing the notion that 'information cannot be owned' is not the same as ridiculing the people who believe that 'information cannot be owned'.

I don't quite follow what the situation is with Crupp's "public access information" because my PC has a fault, the Windows desktop is lagging horribly, and scrolling through a webpage (let alone an entire forum thread) is sheer pain. I'll have another look when I've fixed this problem.

deepo_HP
06-02-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
Josf,
I, and probably others, am not sure what your position is so here's a few questions that may help...

Do you believe that I should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price I wish? What about give it away for free?

What about the same situation but replace book with music CD or movie DVD?

--Outlaw.

hi whtboy,

that is probably the most interesting part... when it concerns art and entertainment.
for the legal side: no, it is not correct or allowed to distribute copyrighted work, doesn't matter if for commercial purpose or not.
i won't deny that!

now about ethics.

i read half the books in our city's public library as a child. i would have bought them as my money were enough. copying was not possible.

i love movies, i love to watch them in cinema in all their beauty. good i worked as a projectionist in my student time, else i would still be paying back the money i loaned for the tickets.
my best schoolfriend had both beta and vhs recorders at that time... before sony won at highest court, so only vhs remained. for copying, but minor quality to tv, not to mention screen! and for 20 bucks a tape...

when i was young i had a radio, taped with a hand-microphone my favourites. later i bought vinyls of my taped favourites, treating them with fluids to preserve quality http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif or copied them on tape (chrome-something!) via amplifier, but still minor quality! copy was about third the cost of the vinyl itself.

by going digital copying is cheap and simple as smoking a cigarette (<- watch the comparison).

what is the point?
let's see, who made it possible. which product do i copy? what consequences are there, commercially seen?
well, digital media is not invented by music or movie-industries. but only the use of digital media uprised the problem of cheap copying with the same quality. where quality never means the quality of the primary product.
since the introduction of audio-cd the price has been held on the same level for twenty years by illegal agreement. the global wins of music-producing industries is now higher than ever, the movie-industry nearly never saw a baisse. they both may have earned more, they never lost though.
compilations of audio-cds rarely fit the expectations of customers. dvd-releases and the whole region concept, director's cuts (<- what is that anyway, do director's sit there a year after and re-editing their movies for boredom?), special editions and - worst of all and heretic - remakes (<- who protects the customers of these annoying remakes?)... all this is neither art nor entertainment.
all this is just abusing the possibilities of digital media!
and the creators?
the average artist doesn't earn more or less than before, just the peaking 'superstars' go swindling heights.
and the customers?
well, after watching 'lord of the rings' on the big screen embedded in thx-sounds, i bought the dvds (in a collector's case with golden booklet). as the 'special edition' came out 4 months later, i desperately wanted the 2 hours more and persuaded a friend to buy and copied them. be sure, as soon as the decision for blu-ray or hd-dvd is made, i will download it!

i am still convinced, copyright has it's worth in art and entertainment.
i am not convincced, that the ethic-level of copyright holders in the entertainment business is any higher than of those who infringe the law. not to speak of the products, it is all about, which are averaged down to a level not even comparable to the content of an empty cd-r.
i feel pity for those few, who create, produce and deliver high-quality, but don't get what they earned.
i feel also pity for passionate cineatics, but the only palace left in town shows actual blockbuster for the next 8 weeks (forced by contract).

joeap
06-02-2007, 06:02 PM
You know Josf's threads and many others here always end up like this (http://pown.alluc.org/?uid=165)

SkyChimp
06-02-2007, 07:04 PM
I've read this thread from beginning to end and the only thing I have to say is the difficulty of calculating LD in May is the science of the yesterday. You see, more and more we see that calculating mass is not the same as partaking of brotherhood. Equally strange is that JG14_Josf is not only making the point but also easing our transition into the thing we seek. Never has the sun shone more brightly than the whole of people have sought to prove that the P-51 is superior to the Dora-9. Power to weight ratio is no more solid as the homogeneous solution to the equation. So we apreciate your cherubic cheeks and ask, JG_Josf, that you continue with your meaningful and easily read posts in the future.

WhtBoy
06-02-2007, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you believe that I should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price I wish? What about give it away for free?

Outlaw?,

Yes

Yes

Setting aside my belief, in the effort to eliminate me from any adverse and unwanted attention focused upon me, the fact is that people can and will steal' property if that is what you prefer to call it or believe it to be.

How about a simple objective observation of the physical transfers of matter?

The book in question is transferred onto a record of some kind, say, paper. The writer sends the original to anther person, say, a publisher. What does the publisher send the writer; more paper?

Eventually the publisher and the writer agree to some transfer of some kind. Perhaps they agree to something and then someone does something disagreeable when it turns out that the book in question is a best seller rather than just a bunch of paper with ink on it.

The publisher, if you pardon the language, rapes the author.

I suppose this could be considered as a violation of property rights.

The author may not have the same opinion as the publisher.

Will numbers help?

Suppose the author was sent 1 with two zeros on paper; or in digital form. Suppose that the publisher spent 1 with 5 zeros to mass produce the intellectual property. Suppose that the people receiving the books sent the publisher a total of 1 with 7 zeros for their copies of the intellectual property.

The author nets 100

The book partners (they don't actually own the book) receive permission to read the book.

The publisher nets 10000000 minus 100000 for a total of (getting out the calculator) 9,900,000

All is fine in the world of intellectual property rights; at least according to the publisher.

The Author is inspired to find a new publisher.

I'm not the one imagining that property rights do not exist. I'm trying to observe what is going on and my efforts include communication to and from you to me. I can only control the part from me.

Take the above example and this time the Author publishes the same book (time is rewound) on his website for free and sells advertisement space based upon how many times the book is downloaded.

Is it possible that the Author could net more than 100?

How much does the publisher net in that example?

Who is the counterfeiter?

Does the term counterfeit apply to this type of discussion (off-topic)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If an author sells the rights to his book for a single fixed price to a publisher he should not receive any more money regardless of how well the book sells. The publisher does nothing wrong nor does he "rape" the author. If the author is unhappy with such a deal he shouldn't have agreed to it.

I assume that by "partners" you are referring to those that bought the book and you are incorrect when you say they don't own the book. They do own the book and they can sell it or give it away anytime they want. What they can't do is produce ANOTHER COPY and sell that one.

Only the truly clueless believe that the, "give it away on the net and sell advertising" model will make money. Show me ONE SINGLE website that is making money selling advertising space while giving away a product that took an investment of time and/or money on the part of the website operator.

After showing me that website, please explain how it would be possible to produce a 120 million dollar film if anyone who got their hands on it could sell it at any price they desired down to and including zero.

Similarly, please explain how 1C/Ubi/whoever else is involved, could recoup the millions of dollars it takes to develop and market a game like IL-2 if any one of us could simply offer it up for any price we desired down to and including zero on a $120/month high speed 4 terabyte bandwidth website.

--Outlaw.

JG14_Josf
06-02-2007, 09:32 PM
I do actually give money to the inventor of language, Josf, as a proportion of my earnings.

Philipscdrw,

I see. I see that you have written another sentence in reply to what I've written. I also see, from my viewpoint, how the situation is deteriorating rather than improving as far as a measure of agreement concerning anything in particular.

Take the above sentence for example. It is one sentence and from it I have many more questions to ask merely to gain insight as to what that one sentence means. Who, I wonder, is the inventor of language? What form of money do you give the inventor of language? What is the proportion of your earnings that you give to the inventor of language? How do you measure earnings? How do you measure the cut; the piece of the action? Is the measure of the percentage of earnings that you earn that is being sent to the inventor of language determined by you or is the cut determined by the inventor of language? Is the percentage a negotiated settlement? Do you consider the percentage to be equitable? I mean; do you receive as much as you send? Do you profit from the exchange as much as the inventor of language profits? Do you profit more than the inventor of language? Does the inventor of language profit more than you as a result of the exchange? Is the exchange transferred on a weekly basis? Is it monthly? Do you amortize the exchange rate?


I don't understand why you think I'm ridiculing you when that was never and is not the case. Ridiculing the notion that 'information cannot be owned' is not the same as ridiculing the people who believe that 'information cannot be owned'.

And so it is not now or ever the case; I stand corrected and that is a tremendous relief. Information continues to be difficult to own as far as I see it; it may take some creative thinking and an immense amount of maintenance for me to imagine this to be true. I suppose it is possible to get myself in a position to belief it. I also think that with time I can adopt this as habitual thought process, again, with an incredible amount of effort investment if you will.

I'm having a hard time seeing the point.

Why do it?

The moment the information is known, as I've read someone suggest in this tread, the information is old hat. I'd rather not own it. You can own it if you wish. Anyone can own information to their hearts content; as far as I am concerned.

Why; as far as I am concerned - I'd be glad to spend 20 years in prison for being falsely accused of owning information that was not mine. That would be fine in my book. Perhaps others can join me and we can set a fine example.

I've lived a particularly good life so far and my family may miss me but they don't really need me anymore. Intellectual property rights, copyrights, whatever; sound fine to me for now considering how human beings have managed to evolve. At some point the species will drop it like a hot potato. It is false. You can go on doing whatever it is that you are doing, from your perspective, and I will see things my way. We may meet again. We can compare notes again.


I don't quite follow what the situation is with Crupp's "public access information" because my PC has a fault, the Windows desktop is lagging horribly, and scrolling through a webpage (let alone an entire forum thread) is sheer pain. I'll have another look when I've fixed this problem.

Crumpp has worked out a method (a method borrowed from the U.S. Military if I have that right) of calculating sustained turn performance and this method illuminates something that could be called peak bank angle.

It appears that, according to the calculation, the Fw190 arrives at a peak bank angle, in a sustained turn, and that peak bank angle occurs at a higher speed then a contemporary Spitfire.

The part that interests me is the bank angle part. The other part that interests me is the energy part.

I'm not communicating well; I suspect.

Numbers work better if the idea is to communicate accurately hence the request to have a link to the whereabouts of those numbers once Crumpp posts them on that site eluded to from that site linked here at the beginning of this thread.

Computer problems are odd no? I've tried to back up my hard drive once. I even had external access with hard drive bays. Out with the old - in with the back-up and reboot. That setup lasted a long time. I never had the chance to try the fail safe. The current set-up I have has four hard drives in series parallel. It is another experiment that didn't quite work as planned; however the rig plays IL2 well enough.

Am I babbling?

P.S. Nice drag into the ack; it worked.

JG14_Josf
06-02-2007, 10:06 PM
Only the truly clueless believe that the, "give it away on the net and sell advertising" model will make money. Show me ONE SINGLE website that is making money selling advertising space while giving away a product that took an investment of time and/or money on the part of the website operator.

WhtBoy,

I have a difficult time rationalizing my participation in arguments. What is the point? You are right and I am wrong right?

The simple and theoretical example I tried to communicate to anyone having an interest in discovering what I tried to communicate has been thoroughly exposed by you to be false. It was an attempt at illustrating alternate methods of exchange.

Your challenge is inviting. If I find an example such as the program Skype which gives away their simple product and charges more for their more complex product, then, my example doesn't meet your demand. My guess is that your challenge is fixed. I can never meet your demand.

And then there is Linux. The core of my message concerns, as I have stated, a phenomenon that goes by the current name: Open Source.

You can discard that and concentrate on whatever it is that you wish to prove; in your own mind.

Open Source exists. I didn't imagine it into being like, for example, the phenomenon called intellectual property rights. Open source doesn't require a court, a police officer, a jail, and other stuff to exist in my mind or yours. You don't even have to force the concept into your mind to maintain it. It will continue to exist even if you close your eyes to it, hold your hands over your ears, and duct tape your mouth shut.

What brings you here to this off-topic excursion?

What is your pay off?

I am curious.


I assume that by "partners" you are referring to those that bought the book and you are incorrect when you say they don't own the book. They do own the book and they can sell it or give it away anytime they want. What they can't do is produce ANOTHER COPY and sell that one.

I stand corrected; in your mind. What did I actually write? Does context account for anything? "They" in my world read the book and then the book sits on a shelf. You can call that ownership. I hand books out after I'm done reading them. It, in my world, is discomforting to see books sitting on shelves. What is the point? I stand corrected. The point is ownership of course.

What "they" cannot do, according to you, and your army, of course, is copy those books. Not one copy? Not two? I stand corrected. "They" can't copy them. Not one. Not two. None; they simply can't copy them ever.

I feel owned at this point. You really have defeated me into a state of stupor. What was I thinking!


If an author sells the rights to his book for a single fixed price to a publisher he should not receive any more money regardless of how well the book sells. The publisher does nothing wrong nor does he "rape" the author. If the author is unhappy with such a deal he shouldn't have agreed to it.

No raping? Did you read my hypothetical example? The numbers weren't sufficient to communicate raping? Does it help if I add some measure of insider trading whereby the publisher does a market analysis and the author is some hillbilly from Tennessee?

I've got nothing against hillbillies mind you.

Surely the numbers tell the story sufficiently to an apologist for capitalism? Ohhhhhh, how stupid I am, you are on the side of the publisher!

I get it.

Do I get it?


Only the truly clueless believe that the, "give it away on the net and sell advertising" model will make money.

That is you being nice to me right?


After showing me that website, please explain how it would be possible to produce a 120 million dollar film if anyone who got their hands on it could sell it at any price they desired down to and including zero.

I can't show you anything. You already know everything no? You are merely lowering yourself to my level just to cut this garbage in the bud or at the bud whatever.

My brother purchases some very costly CNC machine programs from a producer and to get that program to work the purchaser has to call the company for an activation key. What will they think of next?

How much does it cost to murder the competition? How much does it cost to make a killing? How much does it cost to make a really good movie? How much does it cost to monopolize the movie industry? What is the meaning of the term: Protection racket? How about extortion?

I can't answer your questions. You have the answer already. Try to remember that my business here has been and continues to be an interest in finding specific information.

You can shoot me down here and if you wish you can shoot me down while playing online with the program IL2. I can take it.


Similarly, please explain how 1C/Ubi/whoever else is involved, could recoup the millions of dollars it takes to develop and market a game like IL-2 if any one of us could simply offer it up for any price we desired down to and including zero on a $120/month high speed 4 terabyte bandwidth website.

Is that a loaded question?

IL2 is not an example of open source software. IL2 is an example of closed source software. Did I mention in one of my posts how Open Source is the opposite of Property right protection software or some similar words endeavoring to communicate something accurately?

I think that I did that more or less.

You can think whatever your heart desires.

WhtBoy
06-02-2007, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Open Source exists. I didn't imagine it into being like, for example, the phenomenon called intellectual property rights. Open source doesn't require a court, a police officer, a jail, and other stuff to exist in my mind or yours. You don't even have to force the concept into your mind to maintain it. It will continue to exist even if you close your eyes to it, hold your hands over your ears, and duct tape your mouth shut.

What brings you here to this off-topic excursion?

What is your pay off?

I am curious.


Please point out to me where I stated that Open Source does not exist. I am an avid user of Linux in both the server and desktop roles and well aware of the multiple licensing schemes that involve open source software. There is no need for you to expound its benefits to me.

Furthermore, I am the author of the "Icon Basher" application. It removes the icons from IL-2 track files and I give it away for free. It's so open source there is no license associated with it at all.

There is no "pay off" for me in this "excursion". Why do you feel that I should have one?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
IL2 is not an example of open source software. IL2 is an example of closed source software. Did I mention in one of my posts how Open Source is the opposite of Property right protection software or some similar words endeavoring to communicate something accurately?

What difference does it make whether it's open or closed source? Both music CDs and movies are sold under a similar license so I can only assume that you feel the same way about closed source software (ie, once I get my hands on it I should be able to sell it or give it away if I want). Is my assumption wrong?



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
No raping? Did you read my hypothetical example? The numbers weren't sufficient to communicate raping?

Yes I did read it and the numbers are irrelevant. An agreement was made for a set price, end of story. If the author wanted to earn revenue based on sales then the agreement should have been for a percentage of the gross sales. There is no law preventing such agreements.



Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your challenge is inviting. If I find an example such as the program Skype which gives away their simple product and charges more for their more complex product, then, my example doesn't meet your demand. My guess is that your challenge is fixed. I can never meet your demand.

No, Skype doesn't meet my demand b/c it is totally different from my question. It's also totally different from your hypothetical scenario of an author giving away his product and earning revenue by selling advertising. It's not even close to being similar. It's not even Open Source software for pete's sake!

How would it be possible for me to "fix" such a challenge? Are you implying that I've contacted every single website owner on the planet and instructed them that if you contact them they are to lie to you about their revenue stream(s)?

--Outlaw.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 07:32 AM
Please point out to me where I stated that Open Source does not exist. I am an avid user of Linux in both the server and desktop roles and well aware of the multiple licensing schemes that involve open source software. There is no need for you to expound its benefits to me.

WhtBoy,

This is a new tactic that I have not seen before (or remember). You ask me politely to do the impossible; for some reason. What is this tactic called; these days? Are you creating a new tactic as yet to be named?

How can I produce something that does not exist so as to satisfy your polite request?

Do you construct this request so as to make sure that I fail?


Please point out to me where I stated that Open Source does not exist.

I can't. You defeat me again soundly. What I actually wrote is a postulation or cause and effect of possible chains of events. If (I wrote) you (or anyone), were to close your eyes, etc. Open Source (Linux as an example) would still exist.

In context that display was presented in response to another one of your challenges (or polite requests) for me to prove something that you find to be in need of proving for some reason. I don't yet know the reason (or reasons) for your participation in this endeavor yet.

There is no need, or desire, on my part to expound the benefits of Linux (or open source) to you. My need and desire is to respond to your polite requests and challenges to what I have written in this thread on this forum. From my viewpoint it goes like this:

I write something.

You respond with some twisted version of what I wrote.

I try to find out why you are doing this.

You respond with polite requests that look to me like twisted versions of public assassination of my character.

Next, of course, is a response that confirms how my character is, in fact, twisted.

You may, or may not, participate in the more overt examples.

Again I cannot do the impossible no matter how politely you communicate such a request. In a phrase you own me again.
I stand corrected again.

Please note that my example that flies in the face of intellectual property rights (international) is the Open Source Phenomenon which doesn't necessarily apply only to software (I can't provide specific examples without having specific experience as proof that can meet a stringent set of specifications that meet someone's approval who has no desire to see something unwanted).

I'm not saying that anyone specific is capable of ignoring things that they do not want to recognize concerning what I try to communicate, exactly, I have this tactic which I call the if the shoe fits' tactic. Someone has to volunteer to try on the shoe. Sometimes the shoe fits. Sometimes the fitter does the best job he can muster to correct me for my obvious errors make me wear the shoe too.

I have a curious example of how modern international business is conducted these days and that example has been documented, in book form, and the document is called: "The PayPal Wars".

It is fundamentally simple. It can also be somewhat complicated in detail.

Another document, in book form, that went public in a kind of and sort of Open Source manner was one called "Common Sense".

I don't mean to confuse "The PayPal Wars" with "Common Sense" as two documents that fit exactly into the Open Source Phenomenon precisely.

My effort to get the link to the place where Crumpp is going to post his latest creations is becoming somewhat inefficient. I'm failing in many directions all at once.


There is no "pay off" for me in this "excursion". Why do you feel that I should have one?

I am curious. I think it is a natural motivating emotion type thing.


What difference does it make whether it's open or closed source? Both music CDs and movies are sold under a similar license so I can only assume that you feel the same way about closed source software (ie, once I get my hands on it I should be able to sell it or give it away if I want). Is my assumption wrong?

You, if I get this right, assume that I, not you, feel that once I get my hands on something, then, I should be able to sell it or give it away if I want.

I can say that you can know that the above is true in many respects. You can also know, about me, that the above can be false in many respects according to me; because I just told you what I think without you having to assume anything about what I think or do not think.

I think that we are speaking about an underlying fundamental principle of how life is conducted. I think there is a very real problem that limits our ability to accurately transfer information on this subject specifically and the same problem is more generally in force in a manner that encompasses all transfers of matter between members of our species.

I can elaborate upon request.


What difference does it make whether it's open or closed source?

If it is open source, then, it exists. If it is closed source, then, it exists. No difference. I stand corrected again. With a little more of this I'll believe in my own stupidity. I am, in fact, already there. If it is open source, then, it is not closed source by definition. There is a difference and the difference illuminates a fundamental difference in how human beings transfer matter. The difference is not imperceptible. This can be know as true merely by noting how one goes by one name and the other goes by another name.


Yes I did read it and the numbers are irrelevant. An agreement was made for a set price, end of story. If the author wanted to earn revenue based on sales then the agreement should have been for a percentage of the gross sales. There is no law preventing such agreements.

I want you on my jury; just before I'm sent to prison for copy write crime, and this is merely a hypothetical example of a crime that isn't. Perhaps this is simply one of those failures to communicate? Perhaps this is one of those successes to communicate? The numbers are never irrelevant, remember, the profit motive? How are all those things going to be produced without the profit motive? One with two zeros can't be nearly as motivating as one with 5 zeros? That is not at all irrelevant. Not from my perspective. You can judge anything as you see fit and my judgment continues to be that you can judge anything as you see fit. I do want you on the jury trying me for copy right crime. You are so...what is the word judgmental?

Is the word definitive better?


No, Skype doesn't meet my demand b/c it is totally different from my question. It's also totally different from your hypothetical scenario of an author giving away his product and earning revenue by selling advertising. It's not even close to being similar. It's not even Open Source software for pete's sake!

I have a brother named Pete. When something is given away, to Pete, it is for Pete's sake unless Pete fails to be motivated to get things for himself due to the Pete's Sake Giveaway Program.

No, I can't ever meet your demand, so, why do you continue with this endeavor?

Are you on autopilot?

Xiolablu3
06-03-2007, 08:00 AM
JOsf is on a mission.

'See how many people I can argue with before I die'

I believe hes already reached the 20,000 mark'

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 08:11 AM
X3,

I am not as you portray (and false quote) me.

What exactly is your mission here? I am asking.

I can guess as a possible answer to be confirmed or denied by you.

You are my personal volunteer narrator?

If you continue to get the narration wrong, then, you may consider finding something to do at which you have some measure of proficiency.

Or

Continue to volunteer as my personal narrator.

If you continue to volunteer as my personal narrator, if that is what you are doing, from your viewpoint, then, expect that I will continue to correct your errors.

You can quote me as saying:

I see no point in arguing whatsoever.

For the casual reader who may have opened this thread up expecting something and finding something I can add now how this threads path is not entirely within my control.

If you decide to post here, in response, or just because', then, like me, you may find personal narration posts claiming to know what you too are thinking and doing.

You may also be reported to be on a specific mission whereby the report quotes you saying something that you did not say and something that you do not think.

It is almost as if, like me, you will be inspired to stop posting on this forum and in this thread because of the risks involved in posting on this forum and in this thread.

Unless, of course, you prefer to have your motivations, thoughts, and ideas misrepresented. If so, then, this may be an ideal place to get started.

ImpStarDuece
06-03-2007, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please point out to me where I stated that Open Source does not exist. I am an avid user of Linux in both the server and desktop roles and well aware of the multiple licensing schemes that involve open source software. There is no need for you to expound its benefits to me.

WhtBoy,

This is a new tactic that I have not seen before (or remember). You ask me politely to do the impossible; for some reason. What is this tactic called; these days? Are you creating a new tactic as yet to be named?

How can I produce something that does not exist so as to satisfy your polite request?

Do you construct this request so as to make sure that I fail?


Please point out to me where I stated that Open Source does not exist.

I can't. You defeat me again soundly. What I actually wrote is a postulation or cause and effect of possible chains of events. If (I wrote) you (or anyone), were to close your eyes, etc. Open Source (Linux as an example) would still exist.

In context that display was presented in response to another one of your challenges (or polite requests) for me to prove something that you find to be in need of proving for some reason. I don't yet know the reason (or reasons) for your participation in this endeavor yet.

There is no need, or desire, on my part to expound the benefits of Linux (or open source) to you. My need and desire is to respond to your polite requests and challenges to what I have written in this thread on this forum. From my viewpoint it goes like this:

I write something.

You respond with some twisted version of what I wrote.

I try to find out why you are doing this.

You respond with polite requests that look to me like twisted versions of public assassination of my character.

Next, of course, is a response that confirms how my character is, in fact, twisted.

You may, or may not, participate in the more overt examples.

Again I cannot do the impossible no matter how politely you communicate such a request. In a phrase you own me again.
I stand corrected again.

Please note that my example that flies in the face of intellectual property rights (international) is the Open Source Phenomenon which doesn't necessarily apply only to software (I can't provide specific examples without having specific experience as proof that can meet a stringent set of specifications that meet someone's approval who has no desire to see something unwanted).

I'm not saying that anyone specific is capable of ignoring things that they do not want to recognize concerning what I try to communicate, exactly, I have this tactic which I call the if the shoe fits' tactic. Someone has to volunteer to try on the shoe. Sometimes the shoe fits. Sometimes the fitter does the best job he can muster to correct me for my obvious errors make me wear the shoe too.

I have a curious example of how modern international business is conducted these days and that example has been documented, in book form, and the document is called: "The PayPal Wars".

It is fundamentally simple. It can also be somewhat complicated in detail.

Another document, in book form, that went public in a kind of and sort of Open Source manner was one called "Common Sense".

I don't mean to confuse "The PayPal Wars" with "Common Sense" as two documents that fit exactly into the Open Source Phenomenon precisely.

My effort to get the link to the place where Crumpp is going to post his latest creations is becoming somewhat inefficient. I'm failing in many directions all at once.


There is no "pay off" for me in this "excursion". Why do you feel that I should have one?

I am curious. I think it is a natural motivating emotion type thing.


What difference does it make whether it's open or closed source? Both music CDs and movies are sold under a similar license so I can only assume that you feel the same way about closed source software (ie, once I get my hands on it I should be able to sell it or give it away if I want). Is my assumption wrong?

You, if I get this right, assume that I, not you, feel that once I get my hands on something, then, I should be able to sell it or give it away if I want.

I can say that you can know that the above is true in many respects. You can also know, about me, that the above can be false in many respects according to me; because I just told you what I think without you having to assume anything about what I think or do not think.

I think that we are speaking about an underlying fundamental principle of how life is conducted. I think there is a very real problem that limits our ability to accurately transfer information on this subject specifically and the same problem is more generally in force in a manner that encompasses all transfers of matter between members of our species.

I can elaborate upon request.


What difference does it make whether it's open or closed source?

If it is open source, then, it exists. If it is closed source, then, it exists. No difference. I stand corrected again. With a little more of this I'll believe in my own stupidity. I am, in fact, already there. If it is open source, then, it is not closed source by definition. There is a difference and the difference illuminates a fundamental difference in how human beings transfer matter. The difference is not imperceptible. This can be know as true merely by noting how one goes by one name and the other goes by another name.


Yes I did read it and the numbers are irrelevant. An agreement was made for a set price, end of story. If the author wanted to earn revenue based on sales then the agreement should have been for a percentage of the gross sales. There is no law preventing such agreements.

I want you on my jury; just before I'm sent to prison for copy write crime, and this is merely a hypothetical example of a crime that isn't. Perhaps this is simply one of those failures to communicate? Perhaps this is one of those successes to communicate? The numbers are never irrelevant, remember, the profit motive? How are all those things going to be produced without the profit motive? One with two zeros can't be nearly as motivating as one with 5 zeros? That is not at all irrelevant. Not from my perspective. You can judge anything as you see fit and my judgment continues to be that you can judge anything as you see fit. I do want you on the jury trying me for copy right crime. You are so...what is the word judgmental?

Is the word definitive better?


No, Skype doesn't meet my demand b/c it is totally different from my question. It's also totally different from your hypothetical scenario of an author giving away his product and earning revenue by selling advertising. It's not even close to being similar. It's not even Open Source software for pete's sake!

I have a brother named Pete. When something is given away, to Pete, it is for Pete's sake unless Pete fails to be motivated to get things for himself due to the Pete's Sake Giveaway Program.

No, I can't ever meet your demand, so, why do you continue with this endeavor?

Are you on autopilot? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2

POLONIUS: "...since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad..."

Seemed appropriate, somehow.

luftluuver
06-03-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2

POLONIUS: "...since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad..."

Seemed appropriate, somehow. +1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 08:16 AM
ImpStarDuece,

I agree.

You quote my entire post entirely. Is that your example of brevity?

What can be done, in forums, is to cut out a specific quote (rather than repost the entire thread word by word and line by line) like this:


Next, of course, is a response that confirms how my character is, in fact, twisted.

You may, or may not, participate in the more overt examples.

ImpStarDuece
06-03-2007, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
ImpStarDuece,

I agree.

You quote my entire post entirely. Is that your example of brevity?

What can be done, in forums, is to cut out a specific quote (rather than repost the entire thread word by word and line by line) like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Next, of course, is a response that confirms how my character is, in fact, twisted.

You may, or may not, participate in the more overt examples. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Methinks you missed the point. In its entirety.

luftluuver
06-03-2007, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Methinks you missed the point. In its entirety. Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ISD, there is an old saying: 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.

Whirlin_merlin
06-03-2007, 08:30 AM
Or did the point miss him, to stay with the relative motion stuff from way back in the past of this thread.

According to a friends father he was once in a Swordfish that made a vertical take-off from HMS Vindex.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 08:46 AM
Methinks you missed the point. In its entirety.

ImpStarDuece,

There is no need to guess (or think if that is what you are doing).

The point may have been as follows:

I, Josf, write posts that are long (not examples of brevity).

Being brief (what you do but not me) is to point out that someone is mad...

Dot dot dot.

The rest is left up to your imagination.

Did I miss the point in its entirety? Can I confess to being completely mad leaving no room whatsoever for doubt?

Does my response to your point seem appropriate somehow?

Zeus-cat
06-03-2007, 09:07 AM
JG14_Josf,

Readingf your posts there is a pattern where you make a statement, often vague and ill-defined, and then you sit back and wait for people to answer. When they answer you reply with a pompous answer and usually insult the person becuase they don't seem to understand you.

Well, I'm tired of having to defend "the system" that you disagree with. If you don't believe that anyone can own information, how would things work in your world?

MEGILE
06-03-2007, 09:20 AM
hehee

why bother talking to him?

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 09:25 AM
If you don't believe that anyone can own information, how would things work in your world?

Zeus-cat,

The above is an example of something that is not pompous or insulting. "My world" is subjective. That is a point of view. Your world is objective. That is another point of view.

I think that your world view is absolutely justified, right, whole, truthful, and even exact if you see it that way. You are welcome to it from my world view.

The above is an example of something pompous and insulting.

Blame me. You are innocent.

Don't blame me whatever.

Blame me for suggesting that you can blame me with impunity.

In my world the term information' and ownership' are mutually exclusive for reasons that may not appear to be valid in your world. I have no problem with this fact.

You can own all the information you can; according to you. Everyone can own all the information they can; according to them. I will continue to note, from my viewpoint, that information is a verb or phenomenon or whatever I view it to be; according to me. I will continue to see how owning' information is impossible; like stopping time.

When I see someone stop time, from my viewpoint, I will then see someone own information. At that point in time I will own up to the idea that information can be owned. Who knows? I may, in time, discover how information can be owned before that time. I have yet to be informed about how information can be owned.

My guess is that there must be a purpose involved in owning information and that purpose has failed to be informed into me perhaps.

What is the purpose of owning information?

I can guess. I'd rather hear the answer from a proponent of information ownership.

I won't hold my breath.

Is that more pomposity and insult?

I won't hold my breath.

I am still asking for the answer from a proponent of information ownership what is the purpose?

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 09:26 AM
hehee

why bother talking to him?

hahahaaa,

Yea; what he said.

WhtBoy
06-03-2007, 10:37 AM
Josf,
After rereading you posts I've realized that, in all your rambling, the only question of mine you've answered is about photocopying a book. You believe that anyone who purchases a book should be able to redistribute that book at whatever price they wish. So, do you feel that anything should be done to prevent the following scenario...

Scenario 1
Author "A" writes a book and sells the rights to publisher "B" for 1 million dollars. Assume that the book costs $1 to mass produce and the publisher prints 200,000 copies and put them on bookstore shelves in their entire distribution area, which covers let's say, 20 states, at $10 each. Publisher "C", a much bigger corporation, buys one copy, prints 1,000,000 copies and puts them on store shelves world wide at $3 each. The author made a million dollars and publisher "B" spent $1,200,000 dollars for the potential to gross $2,000,000, leaving a profit of $800,000 which they plan to use to expand their distrubtion area. Publisher "C" spent $1,000,010 for the potential to gross $3,000,000 with a profit of $1,999,990.

Is this a bad thing? Was the author "raped"?

--Outlaw.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 10:51 AM
You believe that anyone who purchases a book should be able to redistribute that book at whatever price they wish.

WhtBoy,

We can agree on one thing. You and I are having a hard time communicating.

I question even that much to be a true; according to you.

Guessing is hazardous.

Note the use of the word anyone', for example, and realize, if you can, that the word is a compound word involving both any' and one'. Can I concentrate your focus onto the latter part of the compound word that you have chosen to quote as something you have understood concerning my viewpoint?

I'll pause before continuing for a general lack of confidence.

Meanwhile I am going to link (http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=345&forum_id=2) something. I do not expect anyone to agree with anything I say or do. Sometimes someone does that is enough for me.

AKA_TAGERT
06-03-2007, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
We can agree on one thing. [INSERT ANYONES NAME HERE] and I are having a hard time communicating.
Fixxed that for yah!

WhtBoy
06-03-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy (AKA Outlaw):
Do you believe that I should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price I wish? What about give it away for free?

Outlaw?,

Yes

Yes
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

raaaid has been usurped!

--Outlaw.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 11:23 AM
To the casual reader,

The last two posts are examples of brevity. The message is nearly unmistakable.

"Anyone" encompasses all presumably you.

AKA_TAGERT
06-03-2007, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
To the casual reader,

The last two posts are examples of brevity. The message is nearly unmistakable.

"Anyone" encompasses all presumably you. As a member of anyone, yes.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 11:38 AM
As a member of anyone, yes.

Back to the casual reader,

And there you have it: - confirmation straight from the horse's orifice.

Whirlin_merlin
06-03-2007, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
hehee

why bother talking to him?

Why pick off a scab before it's ready?

Why hold that cramp just to feel the pain?

Why do birds suddenly appear everytime you are near?

Okay one of those is the odd one out.

WhtBoy
06-03-2007, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
To the casual reader,

The last two posts are examples of brevity. The message is nearly unmistakable.

"Anyone" encompasses all presumably you.

Since the definition of "anyone" is, "any person at all", it does include ALL readers, casual or not.

In my original question about the use of books, I used the pronoun "I" when I could have used, "anyone", however, there is no reason for me to have priviliges beyond those of anyone else when it comes to books I purchse versus books they purchase so the answer should not change with the change of the pronoun.

Regardless, I will rephrase...

Do you (Josf) believe that anyone (any person at all) should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price they (the purchaser, being anyone and therfore any person at all) wish? What about give it away for free?

--Outlaw

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 12:29 PM
Do you (Josf) believe that anyone (any person at all) should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price they (the purchaser, being anyone and therfore any person at all) wish? What about give it away for free?

One.

Any ONE.

One does not mean an organized multitude of person's combining their productive power to produce many copies of books for profit at the expense of the author who has created that which is copied and sold.

You take what I say and then twist it around to mean something that it is not meant to communicate as if what I intend to mean is dictated by you despite any effort on my part endeavoring to point out that my thoughts are mine and not yours.

Example:


I can say that you can know that the above is true in many respects. You can also know, about me, that the above can be false in many respects according to me; because I just told you what I think without you having to assume anything about what I think or do not think.

I can write the above in response to this:


What difference does it make whether it's open or closed source? Both music CDs and movies are sold under a similar license so I can only assume that you feel the same way about closed source software (ie, once I get my hands on it I should be able to sell it or give it away if I want). Is my assumption wrong?

You can ignore what I wrote and go on about whatever your intent is in this endeavor of yours for whatever reason, inspiration, and motive that you do not have; according to you.


There is no "pay off" for me in this "excursion".

Of course there is no "pay off" for you in this "excursion".

Why do you continue to post in this thread on this forum?

It can't be a desire on your part to receive accurate communication from me can it?

I'm guessing again since there is a general lack of information from which to answer the question being guessed at.

The example I communicated (or tried to communicate) included a hillbilly from Tennessee. I rewound the clock and that same hillbilly avoiding the publisher and went about publishing his book himself. He was interested in having his book read by as many people as possible. Everyone, it turned out, wanted his book. Some could afford the price of the book. Some could not.

OHHHH my wife just ordered me to go....

AKA_TAGERT
06-03-2007, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
OHHHH my wife just ordered me to go....
I would like to give a shout out to Josf's wife! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Zeus-cat
06-03-2007, 12:57 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

You never answered my question about how your system would work. If no one has the right to own information, then why would people bother to create something.

To answer your question about why should individual people have the right to own information?

The answer is right here on this forum. Under the Soviet system, where the state owned everything you created, a game like IL-2 would have never been created in Russia. The state would see no benefit in it and Oleg would not have been allowed to profit from it. It took a lot of effort by Oleg and the other developer's to create and update this game. Without the profit motive it would not be what it is today.

WhtBoy
06-03-2007, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do you (Josf) believe that anyone (any person at all) should be allowed to buy a book at the store, photocopy it, and then sell it at what ever price they (the purchaser, being anyone and therfore any person at all) wish? What about give it away for free?

One.

Any ONE.

One does not mean an organized multitude of person's combining their productive power to produce many copies of books for profit at the expense of the author who has created that which is copied and sold.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It only takes ONE person to scan a book into PDF format and upload it to a website where it can be downloaded by millions of other "ones". Unless I'm missing something, none of those "ones" paid the author for their copy. I can see where you're on the side of the author.


--Outlaw.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 02:26 PM
You never answered my question about how your system would work. If no one has the right to own information, then why would people bother to create something.

I cannot do the impossible. If you have a question that you seek to answer, rather than a question that you don't want answered, then you can find it if it exists or can exist.

People bother to create things for many reasons and one reason is pecuniary reward. The open source phenomenon, if you take a casual look at it, may help answer the question you ask of me.

As to the mention of my system' I can offer much; however given the current level of accurate information transfer, well, the cost/benefit analysis is coming up rather short.


The answer is right here on this forum. Under the Soviet system,

<snip>

I see the very real possibility that you have me confused with your imaginary Straw-Man.

A. I'm not seeking an apology for intellectual property rights.
B. I am not advocating dictatorship by the few, or one, over the many.
C. If someone is characterized by A and B, then, they could confess.


It only takes ONE person to scan a book into PDF format and upload it to a website where it can be downloaded by millions of other "ones". Unless I'm missing something, none of those "ones" paid the author for their copy. I can see where you're on the side of the author.

This charade that may or may not resemble a discussion is not my sole creation. Knowing the facts and reporting the facts concerning what can or cannot be done is something that does interest me. So, given the above facts, and knowing that the above facts are facts, then, it appears certain that intellectual property rights, if they exist at all, is subject to each individuals own power of will and, dare I say, conscience. What is stopping everyone copying everything and completely destroying any notion of intellectual property rights now that, in fact, nothing, or practically nothing, is stopping anyone anymore?

It seems to me that the old is out and the new is on the way in. I could be as wrong as my narrators fantasize publicly.

I'm willing to admit that very real possibility.

On a side note (my wife continues to impose her will into this thing that may or may not resemble a discussion):

Just now, previous to these words being typed, I read something that I find to be particularly profound. I exclaim to my wife, who is busy selling real estate, listen to this sentence it is a very good sentence', my wife being as patient as she can stares at me.

I offer my best impression of a profound orator:

"When, some time later, the doctrine of possession swept the Western world on the heels of the new Judeo-Christian conception of sin, the business of the physican-priest became that of separating the inhabiting evil spirit from the body of its unfortunate host."

At one point in our lives my wife was suffering from severe depression. I can remember a point at which the doctor's assistant was fervently trying his best to have my wife committed. I asked the doctor repeatedly, many more times than twice, if while my wife is under his care she were to decide to leave could she. The answer was always the same answer i.e. "That would be up to the doctor".

My wife was next to me. I wanted to stress a point and you may or may not appreciate my curious position as being the person who must add stress at that critical point in time. I said: "If my wife wants to leave, to see her children perhaps, and the doctor says no, and if then my wife becomes agitated, then, will you sedate her?"

The answer was again: "That would be up to the doctor."

I then said: "You accuse my wife of being currently polluted with too much medicine from doctors who are possibly not as good as your doctors treatment, so, again if my wife wants to leave and the doctor says that she cannot leave, and if my wife insists upon leaving, then, will you sedate her?"

The answer was again: "That will be up to the doctor."

My wife was now becoming concerned that her husband was showing signs of dementia.

I have a hard time hiding my feelings it seems.

I asked: "If my wife, as she now tells you, is suffering from severe depression does become, as she fears, out of control, then, will you sedate her?"

Now; it may be important to note this guy already told my wife that she would be sedated upon admittance.

The answer was again: "That would be up to the doctor."

My wife and I decided to go home once this assistant to the doctor left us alone for a few minutes; while we were there at the local hospital outside the locked doors to the Psycho-ward.

Is this too personal?

My wife is more than fine now. She listened to my oration of the very good sentence and responded.

The very good sentence failed to communicate from me to her. I got it.

WhtBoy
06-03-2007, 02:38 PM
Not only has raaaid been usurped, he has been cast down and smashed asunder by the might of Josf.

--Outlaw.

Zeus-cat
06-03-2007, 02:51 PM
You talk a lot, but say very little.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. You want me (and others) to defend the right of someone to own information and copyright it, but you claim they shouldn't be allowed to do so. You offer no viable alternative way of doing business when asked to do so. You don't have to defend anything as you have never stated a position to defend. You can't be wrong as you never actually said anything.

Bye.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 02:57 PM
Not only has raaaid been usurped, he has been cast down and smashed asunder by the might of Josf.

WhtBoy,

Can I safely say that you didn't get it?

It was just one sentence and I didn't write it. I did get it.

My wife didn't get it.

Did you get it?

What are you trying to do now with your campaign to associate me with this raaaid character? What do you call this that you are doing now? What is your motive for this that you are doing now?

If you were on one side of a one way glass and I happened to be on the other side (in a padded cell) would you push the button that sent a large amount of electric current through my brain?

I am curious. That is my motive.

JG14_Josf
06-03-2007, 03:04 PM
You talk a lot, but say very little.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. You want me (and others) to defend the right of someone to own information and copyright it, but you claim they shouldn't be allowed to do so. You offer no viable alternative way of doing business when asked to do so. You don't have to defend anything as you have never stated a position to defend. You can't be wrong as you never actually said anything.



I see no point in continuing this discussion.

<snip>

If the above is true, then, was the rest of the flow of "information" pointless?


You want me (and others) to defend the right of someone to own information and copyright it, but you claim they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

You are incorrect. That sentence is false. What is the point of writing it?


You offer no viable alternative way of doing business when asked to do so.

That is incorrect. That sentence is false. What is the point of writing it?

If you do not read what I write, then, I can see how you misinterpret what you don't read. That makes sense. I'm guessing. Why continue to writing false things about me? Why continue doing something that you state as being pointless?


You don't have to defend anything as you have never stated a position to defend. You can't be wrong as you never actually said anything.

Why do you continue with this effort on your part?

I am curious. I started this thread to find out something specific. I am learning much more than expected.

AKA_TAGERT
06-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
You talk a lot, but say very little.

I see no point in continuing this discussion. You want me (and others) to defend the right of someone to own information and copyright it, but you claim they shouldn't be allowed to do so. You offer no viable alternative way of doing business when asked to do so. You don't have to defend anything as you have never stated a position to defend. You can't be wrong as you never actually said anything. Agreed 100%!

A great summary that pertains to just about all of Josf's posts in this forum IMHO

ImpStarDuece
06-03-2007, 03:37 PM
Today's word for the day: bloviate.

stathem
06-03-2007, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Today's word for the day: bloviate.

Learnt a new word. Very apt, thanks, ISD.

Kurfurst__
06-04-2007, 03:20 AM
Gentlemen,

Please do carry on.

WilhelmVonPrang
06-04-2007, 04:19 AM
I can't even rationalize (make believe) that information can be owned. I've tried. Even the most rabid proponents of copy write laws can't win their crusades against reality without resorting to brute force or fraud. Make believe is make believe; forever and always.

Josf, I take back my comment the other day about you being an Elisa AI - what you said above goes to the very heart of all that is wrong with present day western 'civilisation'. Reminds me of a Gandhi quote:-

When asked by a journalist what he thought of western civilisation, Gandhi pondered for a moment, then with a smile said "I think it would be a very good idea"

We don't seem to have 'progressed' as much as we would like to think, judging by our 'leaders', anyway!

Willi Pranger

.

WhtBoy
06-04-2007, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by WilhelmVonPrang:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can't even rationalize (make believe) that information can be owned. I've tried. Even the most rabid proponents of copy write laws can't win their crusades against reality without resorting to brute force or fraud. Make believe is make believe; forever and always.

Josf, I take back my comment the other day about you being an Elisa AI - what you said above goes to the very heart of all that is wrong with present day western 'civilisation'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So WvP, since Josf won't give a real answer to any of the questions posed in this thread and you appear to be taking his side, would you care to take a crack at telling us capitalist pig dogs how an exceedingly large percentage of the non-subsistence population would earn a living if no one was allowed to own the rights to information?

--Outlaw.

bazzaah2
06-04-2007, 05:09 AM
WvP IS Josf WhtBoy.

I think he probably fancies himself as a latter-day Hylas and Philonus.

JG14_Josf
06-04-2007, 07:52 AM
WhilhelmVonPrang,

I missed whatever it was that you took back (or forgot it). Thanks for taking it back anyway.

The biggest problem with our species is a dependence upon falsehood. A few theories float around as to which specific falsehood is the most destructive. The Capitalists blame the Socialists. The Socialists blame the Capitalists. That is just two theories. Those theories dominate Western Culture'.

How about this one: "Western Culture" doesn't exist anymore. It is a Global culture now. The blame has to rest squarely upon each individual equally.

Example:


So WvP, since Josf won't give a real answer to any of the questions posed in this thread and you appear to be taking his side, would you care to take a crack at telling us capitalist pig dogs how an exceedingly large percentage of the non-subsistence population would earn a living if no one was allowed to own the rights to information?

The falsehood above could have been prevented by me or you. All one has to do is expose the falsehood above for what it is. For me it is easy. I know, for a fact that I gave more than one real' answer to any of the questions posed by the person creating falsehood. (Call him the lender of last resort of falsehood). I am the borrower of the falsehood if I believe' in it. I can't. It isn't true. I know it isn't true easy for me.

Someone else may have a vested interest' in receiving the falsehood. They get something for believing' in the latest issue of falsehood (straight off the press).

What is most telling about the latest issue of falsehood coming straight from the origin the creator is the following:


...no one was allowed to own the rights to information?

If you look carefully, and from your response I can see that you can, the issuer of falsehood has twisted what I have said (and what is true) around 180 degrees.

Who claims, anywhere, that no one is allowed to own the rights of information?

I know such words do not emit from my brain, thoughts, beliefs, or my fingers on any keyboards. I may do such things under torture or if, for example, the inquisitor has my family hanging by their private parts in plane view upon meat hooks.

I don't need to go back and check. Even if I did happen to make such a serious error in typing things that I do not think, and things that are not true, things I do not believe, things I am being accused of writing, thinking, well, I hereby retract such an error (but my critics will not listen anyway).

I did not claim that no one was allowed to own intellectual property rights.

Such an allowance' comes from the minds of amateur dictators, where, behavior has to pass the dictate's allowance'.

The concept of a dictator' (in chief) is falsehood. Many, many, and many more people sharing in the belief' of a dictator' are necessary (cannot be without in the physical universe) in order for a dictator' to exist.

There are exceptions to the rule.

Suppose for example; person A has two formulas.

1. A new airborne pathogen that can wipe the entire human race out on 24 hours.
2. A formula for an anti-body that immunizes each person taking the anti-body.

Person A won't need any believers' especially if person A can monopolize the production of the anti-body.

This may go over a few of the heads reading this forum. I suspect that what I write sinks in otherwise I wouldn't have any critics. I certainly wouldn't be reproducing myself into two separate beings.

Breeze147
06-04-2007, 10:59 AM
I think prostitution should be legalized in other states besides Nevada.

AKA_TAGERT
06-04-2007, 11:08 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

MEGILE
06-04-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
I think prostitution should be legalized in other states besides Nevada.

It's legal in the UK, if STDs are your thing

Breeze147
06-04-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
I think prostitution should be legalized in other states besides Nevada.

It's legal in the UK, if STDs are your thing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A chap should remember his raincoat if he's going out in the rain. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
06-04-2007, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Breeze147:


A chap should remember his raincoat if he's going out in the rain. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And he should remember his machete, if he's going out into a rainforest where unspeakable creatures live.

AKA_TAGERT
06-04-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:


A chap should remember his raincoat if he's going out in the rain. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And he should remember his machete, if he's going out into a rainforest where unspeakable creatures live. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah So-Ho.. I remember it well

WilhelmVonPrang
06-07-2007, 10:54 AM
Ok I'll tackle 'ownership' in a few less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif words than he who I am linked to all of a sudden...

"The world has enough for everyones needs but never enough for some peoples greed"

Gandhi said that and I challenge anyone to improve upon it.