Copyright
david Windsor
copyright issues regarding both positions that occur in games, and the
sequences that lead to those positions. The question I had asked,
touched upon whether or not a game hosted on Gobase belonged to the
site, or whether it was just the comments and means by which the game
was displayed that belonged to them.
The reason I addressed the issue, is because I have begun working on a
series of photographic images themed around a game played by Seigen and
Shusai. I replayed the game, and at varying points in the game, stopped
in order to capture images of parts and whole board position. My
original concern was that the resulting images could be argued as
belonging to Gobase, rather than myself.
Some interesting points were brought up. One person even compared
copyrighting a sequence of moves in a go game, to copyrighting the
sequence of motions require to tie shoes. Others suggested that joseki,
tesuji and fuseki patterns were inventions, and it could be argued that
they are subject to patent.
Chris Ball wrote:
> I'm going to try and catch this one quickly, to stop yet another huge
> copyright thread. I believe each of the following to be true, and
> aren't aware of compelling disagreements with any of them:
>
> * The moves of any game are _uncopyrightable_, as moves alone.
> This doesn't just apply to Go, of course -- a football game
> score is just as unprotected. From the Copyright FAQ[1]:
>
> "Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of
> operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."
>
> .. and from the British Chess Magazine's website[2]:
>
> "Legally the actual moves of any game as played are considered to
> be in the public domain and not subject to any copyright laws."
>
> * You might ask how it is that the kifu of title matches in Japan
> are kept exclusive to one sponsor, then, typically until that
> sponsor has finished distributing them: this is not done using
> copyright law. The Japanese are not a litigious people, and
> this attitude is governed purely by respect. (Or, if you like,
> fear of the lack of respect that would be forthcoming if someone
> broke this tacit agreement and printed a game without permission.)
>
> * Game compilations -- these can either be with annotated commentary,
> or just the order that the author chose to include the games in --
> _are_ subject to copyright, since a non-factual creative work has
> now been produced. (Namely, the presentation of the games.)
This idea Chris has of freedoms as applied to the sequence spawned a
second interesting idea in my mind; what if, two players both agreed
beforehand, and signed over the rights to the game they played to a
sponsor? Say KGS or IGS sponsors a pro-pro match at one point (rather
than replaying it) and hires both players under a contract that states
the game they create will then become a possession of the financiers?
Chris also goes on to establish that:
>> * To start answering your question; no, you are not breaching copyright
>> law when you take a list of moves, add commentary to them and share
>> the result. On the contrary, you're _creating_ a copyrighted work
>> rather than abusing one!
Which inspires me to ask 'why is it not allowed for a person observing a
match on IGS, to reproduce it on KGS, provided he/she does not directly
reproduce the commentary generated on the first server?
> Uncommented game records are, according to the Berne Convention on
> Copyright, recordings of historical events and can not be copyrighted.
-Frank de Groot, Thurs, Dec 1 2005 1:58 pm-
It seems that many people feel the nature of a sequence to be something
that falls into the public domain, but I'm a bit concerned about the
rights of the organization/person that initially established the record.
Even if a record is not something tangible (or intellectually 'ownable')
the effort that was put into transcribing the record is a labor of
patience (considering some games can span days). Because of this, it
could be argued that regardless of the public nature of a record, the
cost (of paying someone to sit for that long) as-well as the effort
(that person expended in sitting with pencil and paper) warrants the
original disseminater of that record to collect from subsequent uses of
the record. At the very least, first tier use of the kifu.
> Copying game records by hand is not regarded as a copyright violation
> (an argument for using offshore labor to copy games at 0.05 USD/game?).
> And a professional player that I know regards his own games as a works to
> which he and the other player hold copyright.
-Velobici-
Does this suggest that saving an .sgf file is copyright infringement?
assuming one can argue the tangibility of the file. If so, the next
interesting point becomes
> Which is true?
>
> * Copyright law of the country in which the game took place applies.
> * Copyright law of the country in which the game is copied applies.
> * Copyright law of the country in which suit is filed. (How does a foreign judgement get enforced or ignored in another country?)
> * Copyright law of the country in which the entity organizing the match is registered applies.
-Velobici-
Even more interesting, does the data (when passing through various
jurisdictions on its route to and from the points of interest) assume
the copyright laws of numerous and possibly contradicting set of law?
> Exclusive rights are generally divided into two categories: those that grant exclusive rights only on copying/reproduction of the item or act protected (eg. copyright) and those that grant a right to prevent others from doing something. The difference between these is that a copyright would prevent someone from copying the material form of expression of an idea, but could not stop them from expressing the same idea in a different form, nor from using the same form of expression if they had no knowledge of the original held by the copyright holder. Patents and trade marks on the other hand, can be used to prevent that second person from making the same design even if they had never heard of or seen the claimed "property". Those rights must be applied for or registered and are more expensive to enforce.
-Wikipedia-
Does this suggest that when a pro develops a new fuseki pattern, he or
she can claim ownership of that pattern, and attack other pros legally
for using it? They are after all, operating a business (as per their pro
status) and other 'buisnesses' (pro's) who make use of that pattern are
in fact profiting from the research and development of another competing
professional.
Much of this does not apply directly to me (with regards to ownership of
my art), But does suggest that this conversation is both to interesting
and too confusing to drop until a better, firmer, and more widely agreed
upon consensus can be reached.
-cheers-
Frank de Groot
> Does this suggest that when a pro develops a new fuseki pattern, he or she
> can claim ownership of that pattern, and attack other pros legally for
> using it?
It's a bit like copyrighting DNA sequences. They can be thought of as large
numbers with base 4, and Go positions can be represented as large numbers
with base 3 (64 ternary digits).
The thing is, the DNA "number" is a "method" or "invention" that leads to a
physical entity, the Go "number" isn't. But, seen the near-infinite
combinations on the board, a new Fuseki designed by one person, when it's
original, creative and "special" might well be Copyrightable.
If I simply generate all Fuseki positions for the first n moves and print
them out I can't Copyright them, so this is a tricky question.
Such cases should be judged in court, when no jurisprudence available.
Becasue we could theorize pro & cons forever.
Positions from games are never Copyrighted, so you don't have to worry about
that.
And GoBase has no rights over any of the annotation-stripped games in their
collection, neither to their collection themselves because it's a near copy
of the GoGoD collection as per Jan's own admission in an email he sent to
me.
-
> "david Windsor" <Davo...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> Does this suggest that when a pro develops a new fuseki pattern,
>> he or she can claim ownership of that pattern, and attack other pros
>> legally for using it?
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> It's a bit like copyrighting DNA sequences. They can be thought of as
> large numbers with base 4, and Go positions can be represented as
> large numbers with base 3 (64 ternary digits).
That sort of thinking ought not go unchallenged. Procedures of
life are cheapened and trivialized when reduced to dead mathematical
absurdity. Nor are the numbers "4" and "3" apropos to DNA sequences
or Go positions, respectively. The DNA codons are used only partially
and do not map all 4^3 = 64 positions. "Go positions" also ask us to
determine who is to move, whether there is ko, and whether superko
rule applies. These stray bits of information are -crucial- to positions
else there is no effective method of evaluating the positional balance.
If you'd like to apply a base, then consider `base-pi.' At least, via
some transcendental representations, we may construct a relation to
`base-e' , the -most- efficient base for computational representation:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/2fb3b36676dba8b6
> The thing is, the DNA "number" is a "method" or "invention" that leads
> to a physical entity, the Go "number" isn't.
The Go "number" leads to a physical entity called "game records."
In order to understand this one would need to become a "game player."
> ...seen the near-infinite combinations on the board, a new Fuseki designed by
> one person, when it's original, creative and "special" might well be Copyrightable.
You can't define your terms. Many other numbers are much more
"near-infinite" than a supposed "near-infinity" of Go positions. Indeed,
most numbers are much larger than the number of Go positions.
> If I simply generate all Fuseki positions for the first n moves and print
> them out I can't Copyright them, so this is a tricky question.
> Such cases should be judged in court, when no jurisprudence available.
> Becasue we could theorize pro & cons forever.
They're not copyrightable. Next case.
> Positions from games are never Copyrighted, so you don't have
> to worry about that.
A fuseki position is a game position. QED.
> And GoBase has no rights over any of the annotation-stripped games in
> their collection, neither to their collection themselves because it's a near
> copy of the GoGoD collection as per Jan's own admission in an email he
> sent to me.
Pro players are in the situation of "selling their positions" to
match sponsors, but then it is argued that somebody owns such
sets of game positions for at least a little while under a broadcast
copyright.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Russia Begins Deliveries of Air-Defense Systems to Iran
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10848
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Others suggested that joseki,
>tesuji and fuseki patterns were inventions, and it could be argued that
>they are subject to patent.
But only by a lying idiot.
>It seems that many people feel the nature of a sequence to be something
>that falls into the public domain, but I'm a bit concerned about the
>rights of the organization/person that initially established the record.
You are perhaps referring to some sort of legal "right" to violate
other people's rights, analogous to the antebellum slave owner's legal
right to violate his slaves' rights?
>Even if a record is not something tangible (or intellectually 'ownable')
>the effort that was put into transcribing the record is a labor of
>patience (considering some games can span days). Because of this, it
>could be argued that regardless of the public nature of a record, the
>cost (of paying someone to sit for that long) as-well as the effort
>(that person expended in sitting with pencil and paper) warrants the
>original disseminater of that record to collect from subsequent uses of
>the record.
As above. That could be argued, but only by a lying idiot.
>> Copying game records by hand is not regarded as a copyright violation
>> (an argument for using offshore labor to copy games at 0.05 USD/game?).
>> And a professional player that I know regards his own games as a works to
>> which he and the other player hold copyright.
>-Velobici-
>
>Does this suggest that saving an .sgf file is copyright infringement?
>assuming one can argue the tangibility of the file. If so, the next
>interesting point becomes
>
>> Which is true?
>>
>> * Copyright law of the country in which the game took place applies.
>> * Copyright law of the country in which the game is copied applies.
>> * Copyright law of the country in which suit is filed. (How does a foreign judgement get enforced or ignored in another country?)
>> * Copyright law of the country in which the entity organizing the match is registered applies.
>-Velobici-
Copyright law is exactly as relevant to this issue as the laws that
made slavery legal were in the antebellum South: they merely establish
the limits of the evil and injustice the privileged may inflict on
others with legal impunity.
>Does this suggest that when a pro develops a new fuseki pattern, he or
>she can claim ownership of that pattern, and attack other pros legally
>for using it? They are after all, operating a business (as per their pro
>status) and other 'buisnesses' (pro's) who make use of that pattern are
>in fact profiting from the research and development of another competing
>professional.
What a load of garbage. That is just the sort of rationalization of
evil that making human rights derivative of property rights is
intended to facilitate.
-- Roy L
david Windsor
the sort of poor argument one finds on the internet, that leaves a bad
taste in the mouth.
> As above. That could be argued, but only by a lying idiot.
Again, thats rude, and un-conducive to intellectual argument. Your
suggesting that all proponents of the other side of this argument might
be idiots does very effectively paint you in that light. Now, calling
people who haven't even presented themselves yet (and potentially don't
exhist; note that I only said
> and it could be argued that they are subject to patent.
not that people did argue that.) is perhaps the single stupidest
accusation I have ever read/heard/seen.
> You are perhaps referring to some sort of legal "right" to violate
> other people's rights, analogous to the antebellum slave owner's legal
> right to violate his slaves' rights?
> Copyright law is exactly as relevant to this issue as the laws that
> made slavery legal were in the antebellum South: they merely establish
> the limits of the evil and injustice the privileged may inflict on
> others with legal impunity.
> What a load of garbage. That is just the sort of rationalization of
> evil that making human rights derivative of property rights is
> intended to facilitate.
> -- Roy L
Well well Roy, your certainly have me pinned here... You've attached my
side of the debate (which if you had taken the time to properly read,
was merely establishing both potential sides of the debate) to slavery
in the south... Now, Do I continue to advocate the argument, and make it
seem to the 'lying idiots' that I also advocate slavery, or do I move
along on the assumption that most people here are smart enough drop
rhetorically based arguments with little consideration.
I'm very sorry to have to tell you this, but if your going to associate
someone else's ideas with say, slavery... Then you will have to expend a
bit more effort that you have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi Logical fallacies garnish
very little respect from people with at least a half brain. If your
going to draw examples from slavery to negate (half of) my argument,
then by all means, do so from an educated vantage. Human rights are a
long stretch away from copyright law, and intellectual property, in what
small way does what I've said resemble human rights violation with
regards to slavery?
In fact, I have a small request for you... if you feel so adamantly that
you must argue slavery-my argument, then please try and make use of
slavery in the context of south African apartheid (of which much more
documentation exists). Otherwise, concede that your argument stands only
insofar as it rides the shirt-tails of an American travesty.
cheers
~David Windsor~
Dav...@gmail.com
> It's a bit like copyrighting DNA sequences. They can be thought of as large numbers with base 4, and Go positions can be represented as large numbers with base 3 (64 ternary digits).
Interesting comparison Frank, but you donot address the fact that a go
game is in fact created by someone, while DNA (excluding religious
argument/dogma) is not an invention of man, but merely discoveries.
DNA is a discovery of science and is no more subject to copyright than
Newtonian gravity. Could you imagine if a corporation bought the rights
to gravity from descendants of Newton? They would then be able to sue
any company that tried to use a boat to transport goods, since buoyancy
is related to gravity in such a critical way.
It is much easier however, to convince (at least a go player) that
fuseki patters are in fact invention, and require exhaustive research
and effort to create (in the case of effective ones at least),
Cheers frank
~David Windsor~
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> But only by a lying idiot.
>I do hope you aren't suggesting to me that I am an lying idiot.
Only if you advance that argument.
>This is
>the sort of poor argument one finds on the internet, that leaves a bad
>taste in the mouth.
Whereas wholesale violation of human rights for the unearned profit of
the privileged presumably doesn't?
>> You are perhaps referring to some sort of legal "right" to violate
>> other people's rights, analogous to the antebellum slave owner's legal
>> right to violate his slaves' rights?
>> Copyright law is exactly as relevant to this issue as the laws that
>> made slavery legal were in the antebellum South: they merely establish
>> the limits of the evil and injustice the privileged may inflict on
>> others with legal impunity.
>> What a load of garbage. That is just the sort of rationalization of
>> evil that making human rights derivative of property rights is
>> intended to facilitate.
>
>Well well Roy, your certainly have me pinned here.
Are you saying that you are advancing the claims that you previously
only claimed "could be argued"?
>You've attached my
>side of the debate (which if you had taken the time to properly read,
>was merely establishing both potential sides of the debate) to slavery
>in the south.
If you had taken the time to read what I wrote, you would have noticed
that I did not assume you were taking that side.
But I was of course wondering if it actually _was_ your side...
>Now, Do I continue to advocate the argument, and make it
>seem to the 'lying idiots' that I also advocate slavery, or do I move
>along on the assumption that most people here are smart enough drop
>rhetorically based arguments with little consideration.
>
>I'm very sorry to have to tell you this, but if your going to associate
>someone else's ideas with say, slavery... Then you will have to expend a
>bit more effort that you have.
No, actually, I don't. It's quite simple, really: if you are arguing
on the basis of legal principle, then you have to accept that the
exact same arguments applied when slavery was legal. As we already
know that slavery cannot be justified, any argument that would be
equally applicable to justifying legal slavery is known in advance to
be fallacious, with no other arguments needed.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi Logical fallacies garnish
"Garner."
>very little respect from people with at least a half brain. If your
>going to draw examples from slavery to negate (half of) my argument,
>then by all means, do so from an educated vantage. Human rights are a
>long stretch away from copyright law,
No, they most certainly are not.
>and intellectual property, in what
>small way does what I've said resemble human rights violation with
>regards to slavery?
Does the term "right to liberty" mean anything to you?
>In fact, I have a small request for you... if you feel so adamantly that
>you must argue slavery-my argument, then please try and make use of
>slavery in the context of south African apartheid (of which much more
>documentation exists). Otherwise, concede that your argument stands only
>insofar as it rides the shirt-tails of an American travesty.
Apartheid was also an artificial legal construct that violated
people's rights to liberty, same as copyright. Slavery was at least
natural, in the sense that it existed from antiquity, whether or not
there were any laws to give the violation of human rights society's
official blessing.
-- Roy L
Frank de Groot
> The DNA codons are used only partially
> and do not map all 4^3 = 64 positions.
Who said they did?
Re-read my posting. I said that Go positions mapped to 64-digit ternary
numbers, not DNA sequences.
> "Go positions" also ask us to
> determine who is to move, whether there is ko, and whether superko
> rule applies.
So they are 64-digit-ternary numbers plus a few bits. Big deal.
> The Go "number" leads to a physical entity called "game records."
Over time, the numberS (emphasising the S to make it plural) lead to
something beautiful, yes.
Astream of numbers. Just as our brain needs a stream-over-time to make sense
of the environment.
Neurons in the brain work with pulse trains - they are binary and digital in
that sense.
> You can't define your terms. Many other numbers are much more
> "near-infinite" than a supposed "near-infinity" of Go positions.
3^64 . 2^a few bits is more than enough to call it "near infinite".
> They're not copyrightable. Next case.
No, you are not reading properly. The case is not about randomly generated
or sequentially generated Fuseki, the case would be about composed Fuseki by
one (expert) player.
> A fuseki position is a game position. QED.
Untrue.
A "game" is defined as played by two players, at least this is the common (=
courtroom) understanding of the word. We were taking about artificial
constructs by one person. Learn to read - you made five serious
comprehension errors at this point (interestingly all biased against my
statements - remarkable how hatred leads to untruthfullness!).
> Pro players are in the situation of "selling their positions" to
> match sponsors,
Only matter-of-speechly, because legally, the game sponsors could simply
TAKE the records (and anyone else for that matetr could take them).
> but then it is argued that somebody owns such
> sets of game positions for at least a little while under a broadcast
> copyright.
It is argued falsely.
Frank de Groot
> Interesting comparison Frank, but you donot address the fact that a go
> game is in fact created by someone, while DNA (excluding religious
> argument/dogma) is not an invention of man, but merely discoveries.
DNA has been created by evolutionary processes, which, ignoring religious
opinions, is a result of the laws of quantummechanics acting on the Earth
and the universe.
A Go position is made by two people, who's actions are, religious arguments
aside, 100% the result of the laws of quantum mechanics their bodies on this
planet are subjected to..
(Of course I am cheating - the "human" Law is something else than the Laws
of Nature..)
david Windsor
> No, actually, I don't. It's quite simple, really: if you are arguing
> on the basis of legal principle, then you have to accept that the
> exact same arguments applied when slavery was legal. As we already
> know that slavery cannot be justified, any argument that would be
> equally applicable to justifying legal slavery is known in advance to
> be fallacious, with no other arguments needed.
Perhaps so, but the subject at which we have arrived presently does not
equate so easily into black and white.
> No, they most certainly are not.
> Does the term "right to liberty" mean anything to you?
Indeed it does. And one persons right to liberty in no way deflates
another's right to profit. You speak only of the right that you seem to
have established for everyone to access game records. While I don't
disagree with this right, I realize that it has yet to be established by
proper argument. The fact stands that: someone (idiot or not) could
stroll by and make some very valid points regarding the proprietary
nature of kifu.
The rights of the people to make use of the kifu aside, what about the
rights of the people who spent hours generating it (+years getting to
the level at which any kifu they generate would be interesting), those
people who payed to own the buildings/equipment which made that game
possible, The people who sat for long boring hours (I say this as
someone who tried and failed to sit through an entire pro match) and
recorded the match, ect. The profit would hardly be un-earned. A cobbler
produces shoes, a carpenter cabinets, masons produce stonework...
Copyright exists to ensure that people who create intellectual works are
also protected from having their lively hood stolen.
hardly unearned... the sponsors, the recorder, the players all have put
allot of work into creating the potential for games, and if they argued
to that respect, I would have a very hard time beating them with my own
case.
-
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The DNA codons are used only partially
>> and do not map all 4^3 = 64 positions.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> Who said they did?
> Re-read my posting. I said that Go positions mapped to
> 64-digit ternary numbers, not DNA sequences.
When speaking of DNA codons I am still discussing DNA.
Yet 3^64 seems also inadequate for a catalogue of Go positions.
>> "Go positions" also ask us to determine who is to move, whether
>> there is ko, and whether superko rule applies.
> So they are 64-digit-ternary numbers plus a few bits. Big deal.
Having a superko rule does not add "just a few bits."
>> You can't define your terms. Many other numbers are much more
>> "near-infinite" than a supposed "near-infinity" of Go positions.
> 3^64 . 2^a few bits is more than enough to call it "near infinite".
Anything larger than a computer breadbox you would call "infinite."
Seems to be random ramblings of a technician rather than an engineer.
>>> If I simply generate all Fuseki positions for the first n moves and
>>> print them out I can't Copyright them, so this is a tricky question.
>>> Such cases should be judged in court, when no jurisprudence
>>> available. Becasue we could theorize pro & cons forever.
>> They're not copyrightable. Next case.
> No, you are not reading properly. The case is not about randomly
> generated or sequentially generated Fuseki, the case would be
> about composed Fuseki by one (expert) player.
The term _fuseki_ refers to "arrangement of stones" and not merely
to its popular misconception as "opening play" ( joban ). You say we
could "theorize pros & cons forever" (which takes a rather long time)
while you imagine that you could "simply generate all Fuseki positions
..." and "print them out..." (which suggests a rather short time). This
was inverted: takes much longer to generate (print) Fuseki positions
even for just moderately sized n than for the "pro & con theorization."
So it is your notion of what is "forever" that has been skewed by your
formal absense from the gameboard.
Copyright, which is a right awarded to the author or creator by some
national decree, is purposed for advancing the moral aesthetic of that
country by means of individual empowerment in literature, music & arts.
For "stone arrangements" I challenge you to devise a means to discern
whether a given arrangement is the result of one, two or many players.
>> A fuseki position is a game position. QED.
> Untrue.
> A "game" is defined as played by two players, at least this is the common
> (= courtroom) understanding of the word. We were taking about artificial
> constructs by one person. Learn to read - you made five serious
> comprehension errors at this point (interestingly all biased against
> my statements - remarkable how hatred leads to untruthfullness!).
Not necessarily. A "game" is also defined as the playing pieces,
i.e. set of accessories residing in a box on the shelf of a game store.
Some games are solitaire, by design, which do not involve two players.
No hatred, just annoyance from a project of correcting your homework.
Frank utters falsehoods, misstatements, and slanders -many- people.
>> Pro players are in the situation of "selling their positions" to
>> match sponsors,
> Only matter-of-speechly, because legally, the game sponsors could simply
> TAKE the records (and anyone else for that matetr could take them).
No, it's a reality because the pros could simply TAKE their match
games elsewhere and find other sponsors who do not doublecross.
>> ... but then it is argued that somebody owns such sets of game
>> positions for at least a little while under a broadcast copyright.
> It is argued falsely.
It is argued by "powers that be" in the formal gaming community
and nothing anybody says is going to change the fact of that reality.
Sponsors are able to pony up extra money for pro players because
they wish to enforce a broadcast copyright, at least for a little while.
Pro players are going to select sponsors who pony up extra money.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genetic Breakthrough that Reveals the Differences Between Humans
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10847
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> <Dav...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Interesting comparison Frank, but you donot address the fact that a go
>> game is in fact created by someone, while DNA (excluding religious
>> argument/dogma) is not an invention of man, but merely discoveries.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> DNA has been created by evolutionary processes, which, ignoring
> religious opinions, is a result of the laws of quantummechanics acting
> on the Earth and the universe.
I don't suppose that it is valid to ignore "religious opinions" if
we are going to invoke a "result of the laws of quantum mechanics."
Such laws do not act "on the Earth and the universe" but are the
operations of constituents themselves. We -observe- those laws
and are -generators- of such laws (not the ordinary sense of "law").
> A Go position is made by two people, who's actions are, religious
> arguments aside, 100% the result of the laws of quantum mechanics
> their bodies on this planet are subjected to..
Quantum mechanics describes a microscopic statistical realm
which has not been brought into cohesion with the macroscopic
non-statistical realm. People who claim theories do so neglect to
consider that not all agents of causation are aware of such theories.
Governments do not obey "laws of physics" but are enacted chiefly
for the purpose of orchestrating warfare (and "police action") upon
each other and upon their own.
> (Of course I am cheating - the "human" Law is something else than
> the Laws of Nature..)
Those in the United States may believe something different from
Frank. The Declaration of Independence references "nature's God."
With his last statement Frank has not succeeded in avoiding religion.
> <Dav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> DNA is a discovery of science and is no more subject to copyright
>> than Newtonian gravity. Could you imagine if a corporation bought
>> the rights to gravity from descendants of Newton?
Recent biotechnology creates new DNA which they seek to
subject to patent, and not merely copyright. Moreover, in the case
of genetic foodstuff modification (frankenfoods) they seek to ask
farmers and consumers to pay for foods that they do not wish to eat
while destroying the genetics of natural foods they do wish to eat.
> It is much easier however, to convince (at least a go player) that
> fuseki patters are in fact invention, and require exhaustive research
> and effort to create (in the case of effective ones at least),
Unfortunately, the legal arguments would need to be presented to
people generally who are, by and large, not caring about go players.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The White Dragon of England
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10841
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank de Groot
> Having a superko rule does not add "just a few bits."
You should brush up on calculus because it adds six bits. a 6-bit number
that contains the board coordinate on which should not be moved due to the
superko rule. Worst case you need a list of a few of those 6-bit numbers.
Less than 10% of those 64 bits. Big deal.
<snip nonsense>
Frank de Groot
> We -observe- those laws
> and are -generators- of such laws (not the ordinary sense of "law").
Humans did not build the laws of quantummechanics.
They were there before we were.
> Quantum mechanics describes a microscopic statistical realm
No.
"microscopic" is /astronomic/ compared to the quantum level.
<snip nonsense>
Florian
> Go positions can be represented as large numbers
> with base 3 (64 ternary digits).
I think you might be mistaken (or made a typo) here (unless you're
talking about small boards ofcourse), the upper bound for legal
positions on a 19x19 board is in the order of 1.2 % of all 3^361
possible positions (this information is found on
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/go/legal.html). This is quite a bit
smaller than 3^64.
Ben Finney
> Indeed it does. And one persons right to liberty in no way deflates
> another's right to profit.
Every person has a right to personal liberty. We should guarantee such
liberty in the face of anything that might detract from it.
No person has a "right to profit". If that were so, we should
*guarantee* such profits, even in the face of anything that could
detract from the profit. I hope you don't subscribe to that.
Perhaps you mean a "right to seek profit", or some other right of
striving for something. That is quite a different thing.
--
\ "When I was crossing the border into Canada, they asked if I |
`\ had any firearms with me. I said, 'Well, what do you need?'" |
_o__) -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney
Ted S.
2006 22:01:27 GMT:
> I think you might be mistaken (or made a typo) here (unless you're
> talking about small boards ofcourse), the upper bound for legal
> positions on a 19x19 board is in the order of 1.2 % of all 3^361
> possible positions (this information is found on
> http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/go/legal.html). This is quite a bit
> smaller than 3^64.
Are you sure you don't mean "larger than 3^64"? 1.2% of 3^361 only gets
rid of four or five powers of three, leaving you with 3^356 or so.
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
TV Announcer: It's 11:00. Do you know where your children are?
Homer: I told you last night, *no*!
<http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F06.html>
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> No, actually, I don't. It's quite simple, really: if you are arguing
>> on the basis of legal principle, then you have to accept that the
>> exact same arguments applied when slavery was legal. As we already
>> know that slavery cannot be justified, any argument that would be
>> equally applicable to justifying legal slavery is known in advance to
>> be fallacious, with no other arguments needed.
>
>Perhaps so, but the subject at which we have arrived presently does not
>equate so easily into black and white.
>
>> No, they most certainly are not.
>> Does the term "right to liberty" mean anything to you?
>
>Indeed it does. And one persons right to liberty in no way deflates
>another's right to profit.
??? What "right to profit"??? You seem to have got hold of the new
Republican version of the Declaration of Independence...
>You speak only of the right that you seem to
>have established for everyone to access game records. While I don't
>disagree with this right, I realize that it has yet to be established by
>proper argument.
The proper arguments were all laid out centuries ago, and have not
been refuted.
>The fact stands that: someone (idiot or not) could
>stroll by and make some very valid points regarding the proprietary
>nature of kifu.
No. He could make any number of points, but none of them would
validate a property right in game records.
>The rights of the people to make use of the kifu aside, what about the
>rights of the people who spent hours generating it (+years getting to
>the level at which any kifu they generate would be interesting), those
>people who payed to own the buildings/equipment which made that game
>possible, The people who sat for long boring hours (I say this as
>someone who tried and failed to sit through an entire pro match) and
>recorded the match, ect.
Their rights are protected the same as anyone else's. But you are not
talking about rights. You are talking about a privilege of collecting
economic rent.
>The profit would hardly be un-earned.
Any profit that can only be obtained by violating other people's
rights is by definition unearned. Did all those people devote effort
to creating a game record? Sure they did. Thieves also devote effort
to plotting their heists. Does that mean their profits are earned,
too?
>A cobbler
>produces shoes, a carpenter cabinets, masons produce stonework...
And the difference is, their products cannot be used by others without
depriving their producers of them. Game records can. You are either
willing to know that fact or you are not.
>Copyright exists to ensure that people who create intellectual works are
>also protected from having their lively hood stolen.
No, it doesn't. It exists because it's easier for governments to
grant some people rent collection privileges than to secure everyone's
_equal_ rights.
>hardly unearned... the sponsors, the recorder, the players all have put
>allot of work into creating the potential for games,
And somehow, they all managed to make a living before copyright. Such
a mystery.
To you, that is.
>and if they argued
>to that respect, I would have a very hard time beating them with my own
>case.
I wouldn't.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Roy I am not sure exactly what you have been trying to say in this
>thread because I can't stop focusing on the repetition of the phrase
>"lying idiot" and something about american slavery. Do you think Go
>Game records should be copyrighted or not, and why?
No, because IMO copyright per se is a violation of people's rights,
and should rightly not exist at all, period.
-- Roy L
Mef
Hmm, I appear to be a little late in entering this conversation, but
let me see if I have this clear:
>From David's Original Post:
>The question I had asked,
>touched upon whether or not a game hosted on Gobase belonged to the
>site, or whether it was just the comments and means by which the game
>was displayed that belonged to them.
Which I assume is an inquiry as to the legal status of the ownership a
game record with respect to republication?
And received the response:
> Copyright law is exactly as relevant to this issue as the laws that
> made slavery legal were in the antebellum South: they merely establish
> the limits of the evil and injustice the privileged may inflict on
> others with legal impunity.
Which, if taken at face value means:
You will find just as much information regarding the legal rights of
one to republish game records in copyright law as you will in a series
of laws repealed more than one hundred years ago regarding the ability
of one person to possess another.
While clearly this is a stretch, if we work past the odd wording, I
think we can get to the real argument he's trying to make:
It doesn't matter because the law is unjust.
While this may or may not be true, it is a discussion for another
thread, as it has no bearing on the current legal status of game
records and their potential for republication by third parties. The
best part of this is now no one has to be a lying idiot, and we can all
rest easy. Oh, and for a real answer to your question, in the West,
game records are considered historical events and not subject to
copyright. Similar status is given to board positions. I forget the
exact case name but the precedent was set in a lawsuit over publication
of bridge hands, and the judge ruled you could not claim to 'own' a
certain arragement of cards, likewise you cannot claim to own a certain
arrangement of chess pieces, or go stones.
Cheers,
Mef
(This post is not meant to be considered legal advice, use at your own
risk. No purchase necessary, see in-store display for details. Offer
void where prohibited, Some restrictions may apply)
Frank de Groot
> If we are going to jump into the subject of quantum mechanics and theory,
> then why no philosophy as well. Did those laws exist before they were
> observed...?
That statement is irrational.
> I defy anyone to give a solid and undeniably argument that associates the
> anomaly of free will (as it relates to go) with quantum science.
When you bring religion into it, I am outta here :-)
> to copyright, and in fact effluents of quantum causality. Perplexing the
> issue at hand (while spawning interesting ideas) only serves to
> 'confuddle' the whole mess.
I thought it was an interesting side-issue, showing how relative
Copright-related stuff really is on certain levels, because others brought
that up here. I gave my 2 cents on the original issue as well, haven't I?
Frank de Groot
> I think you might be mistaken (or made a typo) here (unless you're talking
> about small boards ofcourse), the upper bound for legal positions on a
> 19x19 board is in the order of 1.2 % of all 3^361 possible positions (this
> information is found on http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/go/legal.html).
> This is quite a bit smaller than 3^64.
I have never said there were so many LEGAL positions, neither did I say that
there weren't ways to COMPRESS a Go position.
But in order to do that (as you suggest), you would have to DECOMPRESS it
and that would take FOREVER in this case.
Imagine a number with 59 ternary digits, meaning: "The
201201200122112012012200122112012201210122101201102012012101201201001120112012012112
th legal board position from the start of the tree".
How would you know how that position looked liked without generating all of
them?
I simply gave a REAL way to represent a position (any position).
Assuming I have no clue what I am talking about, not even when it's about my
own field of comp. science as it relates to Go, is silly.
-
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> You should brush up on calculus because it adds six bits. a 6-bit
> number that contains the board coordinate on which should not be
> moved due to the superko rule. Worst case you need a list of a few
> of those 6-bit numbers. Less than 10% of those 64 bits. Big deal.
You appear to be confusing ko with superko. A superko rule
applies generally to non-repeating positions: no -former- position
of the game may -ever- be repeated again. So each position must
also reference all previous positions in order not to allow repetition.
Those former positions must be made available in order to evaluate.
Question here did not involve brushing off calculus from one's teeth.
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> We -observe- those laws
>> and are -generators- of such laws (not the ordinary sense of "law").
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> Humans did not build the laws of quantummechanics.
> They were there before we were.
You are still working with macroscopic notions of quantum mechanics.
You have not identified the precise moment when "humans" began.
The -potential- for "humans" was also contained in circumstances of
a "big bang" (if that is the appropriate sort of terminology to invoke).
An interplay between the life and death of all organisms is evolution.
>> Quantum mechanics describes a microscopic statistical realm
> No. "microscopic" is /astronomic/ compared to the quantum level.
Quantum mechanics became posited as an agent for Brownian Motion.
Planck's constant was derived from Black Body thermal considerations.
--------------------------------------------
> "david Windsor" <Davo...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> If we are going to jump into the subject of quantum mechanics and theory,
>> then why no philosophy as well. Did those laws exist before they were
>> observed...?
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> That statement is irrational.
The sqrt(2) is also irrational. So what?
>> I defy anyone to give a solid and undeniably argument that associates the
>> anomaly of free will (as it relates to go) with quantum science.
> When you bring religion into it, I am outta here :-)
Knee-jerk reactions do not distinguish you from religious attitudes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
> "Florian" <not...@example.com> wrote:
>> I think you might be mistaken (or made a typo) here (unless you're talking
>> about small boards ofcourse), the upper bound for legal positions on a
>> 19x19 board is in the order of 1.2 % of all 3^361 possible positions (this
>> information is found on http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/go/legal.html).
>> This is quite a bit smaller than 3^64.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> I have never said there were so many LEGAL positions, neither did I say that
> there weren't ways to COMPRESS a Go position.
>
> But in order to do that (as you suggest), you would have to DECOMPRESS it
> and that would take FOREVER in this case.
Decompression does -not- take FOREVER. It's extremely fast.
> Imagine a number with 59 ternary digits, meaning: "The
> 201201200122112012012200122112012201210122101201102012012101201201001120112012012112
> th legal board position from the start of the tree".
>
> How would you know how that position looked liked without generating
> all of them?
We can generate the Nth hexadecimal digit of PI without knowing any
of the previous hexadecimal digits... In your representational scheme
perhaps you have 3^64 in each corner 8x8 block which you can stitch
together? You'll still need much more than 4* 3^64 for the entire board.
If you're just running your template around you still have problems with
event horizons, ladders, life and death, liberty chasing, ko & superko.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
UK: Hungry Muslim Who Killed Swan Jailed
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10836
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank de Groot
> You appear to be confusing ko with superko.
Why would I do that?
> A superko rule
> applies generally to non-repeating positions: no -former- position
> of the game may -ever- be repeated again. So each position must
> also reference all previous positions in order not to allow
> repetition.
Utter bullshit.
The only thing needed to represent any Go position is a 64-digit number of
ternary digits, plus a list of coordinates (each coordinate occupying 6
bits) that say: "Moving here is illegal due to superko".
That's all. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this list is empty. So I
was correct, and you are "confused".
No amount of squirming can get you out of this debācle. The 6-bit "superko"
point defines exactly the position that is the previous superko position,
because it is the 64-bit number with that move added to it.
Try to maneuvre yoursefl out of this one, math genius.
> We can generate the Nth hexadecimal digit of PI without knowing
> any
> of the previous hexadecimal digits...
Utter nonsensical "argument". It /would/ be valid for the entire Go tree but
it isn't when illegal positions are removed.
There is no way to do what you propose in that case. If you do, let us know.
> In your representational scheme
> perhaps you have 3^64 in each corner 8x8 block which you can stitch
> together? You'll still need much more than 4* 3^64 for the entire
> board.
Ah yes, I was thinking about the size of the Chessboard. So it's 3^361 plus
a few bits for the superko coordinates.
It strengthens my argument, the percentual penalty for superko becomes even
much smaller.
Florian
Florian
> Imagine a number with 59 ternary digits, meaning: "The
>201201200122112012012200122112012201210122101201102012012101201201001120112012012112
> th legal board position from the start of the tree".
>
> How would you know how that position
> looked liked without generating all of them?
>
> I simply gave a REAL way to represent a position (any position).
>
> Assuming I have no clue what I am talking about, not even when it's
> about my own field of comp. science as it relates to Go, is silly.
>
In that case I probably didn't understand your remark: 'Go positions can
be represented as large numbers with base 3 (64 ternary digits)'. I know
this is not relevant for the discussion at all, but I don't really
understand your (interesting) remark so there is probably something for
me to learn here :) Could you please elaborate how you can (uniquely)
represent all positions with a number so much smaller than the total
number of positions? (I don't understand yet why n-th position from the
start of the tree would work, since the total go gametree is much larger
than 3^64)
Florian
> Ah yes, I was thinking about the size of the Chessboard. So it's 3^361 plus
> a few bits for the superko coordinates.
>
-
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> Why would I do that?
We don't need to know -why- you are confused.
>> A superko rule applies generally to non-repeating positions:
>> no -former- position of the game may -ever- be repeated again.
>> So each position must also reference all previous positions
>> in order not to allow repetition.
> Utter bullshit.
Well, that's the rule in a game that you do not play...
> The only thing needed to represent any Go position is a 64-digit
> number of ternary digits, plus a list of coordinates (each coordinate
> occupying 6 bits) that say: "Moving here is illegal due to superko".
Though the move can become legal again if some other stones
got captured and/or the play continued in a different fashion. How
would you know this feature without paying attention to prior positions?
> That's all. In the overwhelming majority of cases, this list is empty.
> So I was correct, and you are "confused".
More often than not a Game of Go will contain some ko. In other rare
cases superko condition gets presented. Positional inventory fails when
two seemingly identical positions -- according to your scheme -- are,
in fact, different positions owing to restrictions -imposed- by superko.
Philip Waldron of Canada alluded to such mixups in his MoyoGo review.
> No amount of squirming can get you out of this debācle. The 6-bit
> "superko" point defines exactly the position that is the previous superko
> position, because it is the 64-bit number with that move added to it.
Superko references -ALL- previous positions, not merely the recent.
>> We can generate the Nth hexadecimal digit of PI without knowing any
>> of the previous hexadecimal digits...
> Utter nonsensical "argument". It /would/ be valid for the entire Go tree
> but it isn't when illegal positions are removed. There is no way to do
> what you propose in that case. If you do, let us know.
The theory proceeds from overlapping influence functions, adjusted
for who is to move from a position, the status of any ko and the superko.
These are -four- elements, not unlike e^( pi * i ) = e^( pi / i ) = - 1.
Reduction formulae may use either multiplication or division, randomly.
So anti-reduction formulae must introduce an appropriate assignment.
>> In your representational scheme perhaps you have 3^64 in each corner
>> 8x8 block which you can stitch together? You'll still need much more
>> than 4* 3^64 for the entire board.
> Ah yes, I was thinking about the size of the Chessboard. So it's 3^361
> plus a few bits for the superko coordinates. It strengthens my argument,
> the percentual penalty for superko becomes even much smaller.
You would also need much more than ( 3^64 )^4. I think you do not
yet grasp the essence of this construction. The information required to
generate a position -- under superko -- needs to add all previous states
so that at move `n', we require n*(3^361), plus a few bits for ko... All
of the coordinates are potential "superko coordinates" when positions
cannot be repeated. As the game progresses more information in a
"triangular growth pattern" is required for positional representation.
To determine which of the 6-bit superko moves (plural) were not being
allowed one would need to reference -all- of those prior game states.
In practice the likelihood of superko occurs in late middle-game so
perhaps a comparison hashing horizon can skip over opening games.
You may recall that, for producing a good guess in MasterMind, one
would need to recheck the new guess against all of the previous peg
informations so that one offers only guesses that could be possible.
I could not help but notice that ManyFaces and GoGoD are listed
at the U.K. Trading Cenre website, but there was no mention of MoyoGo.
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Patriots Score in Netherlands Election
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10864
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank de Groot
> Though the move can become legal again if some other stones
> got captured and/or the play continued in a different fashion. How
> would you know this feature without paying attention to prior
> positions?
You pay attention to them, then you add illegal moves due to superko to that
famous 6-bit-per-entry list I've been trying to explain to you.
> More often than not a Game of Go will contain some ko. In other rare
> cases superko condition gets presented. Positional inventory fails
> when
> two seemingly identical positions -- according to your scheme -- are,
> in fact, different positions owing to restrictions -imposed- by
> superko.
> Philip Waldron of Canada alluded to such mixups in his MoyoGo review.
If anyone is confused it is Mr. Waldron because Moyo Go does not play Go
yet.
All the pattern system does is give statistical likelihood for moves.
Because they are statistical, superko (extraordinarily rare!) is already
taken into account.
From the overwhelming anger expressed by many (not just my customers either)
about Mr. Waldron's "review", it is clear that his "review" is a crock of
shit.
A small excerpt of aforementioned public indignation to Mr. Waldrons'
baloney can be read near the bottom of this page:
http://www.moyogo.com/Praise.htm
(this is a link to a page where many dozens of strong Go players express
their paise or explain how Moyo Go Studio made them improve quickly to
several stones stronger)
BTW It's Xmas soon! I'm adding a nice influence-map to Moyo Go at this very
moment, it will be ready this evening - order now and I'll send you the DVD
first thing in the morning!
> Superko references -ALL- previous positions, not merely the recent.
What makes you think I did not know this, after many years of studying Go?
Have you read my explanation why this is irrelevant to the discussion?
> The theory proceeds from overlapping influence functions,
> adjusted
> for who is to move from a position, the status of any ko and the
> superko.
> These are -four- elements, not unlike e^( pi * i ) = e^( pi / i ) = -
> 1.
>
> Reduction formulae may use either multiplication or division,
> randomly.
> So anti-reduction formulae must introduce an appropriate assignment.
Utter baloney. Stick to the point.
> You would also need much more than ( 3^64 )^4.
Nonsense. If you don't grasp simple calculus then all bets are off.
The first random programmer that passed along here (Florian) understood it,
but mr. mathematic genius is clueless.
<snip nonsense>
>
> I could not help but notice that ManyFaces and GoGoD are listed
> at the U.K. Trading Cenre website, but there was no mention of MoyoGo.
I have decided not to grant anybody in the West a licence to resell Moyo Go,
and I have modified the EULA a few days ago to that effect.
People in the West read Western websites and nobody has trouble finding my
site because in spite of the boycot by many operatives, my users tell
eachother about my program.
I am very, very, VERY glad that you give me the opportunity of mentioning in
this context (otherwise it would be rather unethical SPAM) that SmartGo
lowered their price to 69$, just as MasterGo HALVED their price before that.
These are acts of desperation. Moyo Go is now the best selling Go software
in the West.
Updates are forever free, so over time it's half a dozen times cheaper than
any competing software.
Have a nice day!
Frank de Groot
Frank:
>> Ah yes, I was thinking about the size of the Chessboard. So it's 3^361
>> plus a few bits for the superko coordinates. It strengthens my argument,
>> the percentual penalty for superko becomes even much smaller.
>
> You would also need much more than ( 3^64 )^4.
Are you deaf?
3^361 plus a few bits, worst-case, to signify which points are superko.
Frank de Groot
>>
> It is decidedly nearer to zero than to infinity.
Irrelevant in this context.
It's "infinite" to current computers - and it should be 3^361.
Reinhold Burger
Hello Roy:
Could you clarify: Are you saying that copyright should not exist
for game records? Or are you saying that copyright should not
exist for *anything* (game records, game commentaries, books, films,
music, ...)?
Thanks,
Reinhold
Frank de Groot
> Maybe for your program it could be considered close to "infinite" (using
> your
> definition of the word).
>
> Maybe you should look for libaries which are capable of handling larger
> numbers. http://indigo.ie/~mscott/ for example.
You have chosen to assume that your discussion opponent does not know what
he is talking about, instead of entertaining the possibility that perhaps it
is YOU who does not know what I am talking about.
I said that generating all possible Go positions (3^361) minus the ones that
are illegal takes a long time.
So long, that the number 3^361 can be considered "infinite", in that
context.
No scientific library to work woth large numbers is going to change one iota
of that.
Have a nice day!
Frank de Groot
> Hardly. Phillosophy often touches upon the idea that things (in this case,
> quantum mechanical laws) don't exist until they are actively perceived.
Philosophy is not science, and therefore utterly irrelevant (and for the
most part irrational).
<snip nonsense>
-
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Though the move can become legal again if some other stones
>> got captured and/or the play continued in a different fashion. How
>> would you know this feature without paying attention to prior positions?
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> You pay attention to them, then you add illegal moves due to superko
> to that famous 6-bit-per-entry list I've been trying to explain to you.
None of this happens very often, yet some of the work done by
John Tromp, Bill Spight (or whoever), with positional cycling, can
approach a situation where nearly every possible move leads to a
superko problem and then that "6-bit-per-entry list" gets rather long.
If you "pay attention" to the prior positions then actual information
content needed for subsequent positions grows with (3^361) * n,
where `n' is the move number, not just (3^361) * 1.
> "-" <jazze...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You would also need much more than ( 3^64 )^4.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> Are you deaf?
> 3^361 plus a few bits, worst-case, to signify which points are superko.
In practice, perhaps, though not in complete analysis. Go is a
combinatorial game which means all positions can be reached from
all other positions. There could be many borderline superko bounds.
------------------------------------------------------------
> "David Gillen" <Bel...@RedBrick.DCU.IE> wrote:
>> It is decidedly nearer to zero than to infinity.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> Irrelevant in this context.
> It's "infinite" to current computers - and it should be 3^361.
Being less than 10^173 which is nowhere near "infinite" to current
computers. John Tromp's numbers have long ago exceeded that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> "david Windsor" <Davo...@yahoo.ca> wrote
>> Hardly. Phillosophy often touches upon the idea that things (in this case,
>> quantum mechanical laws) don't exist until they are actively perceived.
Somethings can exist for others but not for self, or vice-versa,
depending on who perceives them. If nobody perceives them they
could still exist for virtual observors. At the quantum level, however,
there is your argument that virtual observors do not exist.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> Philosophy is not science, and therefore utterly irrelevant (and for the
> most part irrational).
A discussion of what science is, and/or is not, is certainly philosophy.
Frank's speaking in absolute terms is unfair because some day Frank
will not be with us to guide humanity on its steady course to absolutism.
Irrationality is not invalid. We cannot all the time be subject to the
tyranny of rationalism in the world Frank admits can be irrational.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
Turkish Protests Greet Papal Visit
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10860
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mef
- wrote:
> "Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> > You pay attention to them, then you add illegal moves due to superko
> > to that famous 6-bit-per-entry list I've been trying to explain to you.
>
>
> None of this happens very often, yet some of the work done by
> John Tromp, Bill Spight (or whoever), with positional cycling, can
> approach a situation where nearly every possible move leads to a
> superko problem and then that "6-bit-per-entry list" gets rather long.
> If you "pay attention" to the prior positions then actual information
> content needed for subsequent positions grows with (3^361) * n,
> where `n' is the move number, not just (3^361) * 1.
Wouldn't it be easier to just calculate 4^361, since any given point on
the board can have 4 states (empty (legal play), empty(illegal
superko), stone(black), stone(white)) ?
david Windsor
would have understood that I conceded it was irrelevant... I did so to
illustrate the irrelevance of Quantum mechanical science with regard to
issues of copyright.
I challenge you to stop arguing from opinion, against my
spelling/wording, and to support your own ideas with evidence.
And on a side note, philosophy is not irrational. Science cannot deal
with all aspects of the universe, and where it flops (the issue of free
will for instance) philosophy makes educated and intellectual attempts
at explaining things.
We have been arguing for a few days now, and not once have you supported
you own views with more than empty comparison, insult, and attacks on my
grasp of this language.
Frank de Groot
> And on a side note, philosophy is not irrational. Science cannot deal with
> all aspects of the universe, and where it flops (the issue of free will
> for instance) philosophy makes educated and intellectual attempts at
> explaining things.
There is no such thing as a free will.
I have written an essay about this subject about ten years ago, it has been
lost, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as a free will.
It's an illusioin.
A: People are the product of their culture, their genes, their memories and
a bunch of other factors like mental illness, the weather, stress etc.
B. But the main reason there is no such thing as a free will is the fact
that either:
1. If quantummechanics follow deterministic laws, then all is predestined
2. If they don't, then what you perceive as "free" merely is (A) with some
random thrown in.
Your brain somewhere originates a thought you think is "original" and "the
result of a a free choice", but it is no such thing.
Because all factors that influence your decisions are deterministic. Ethics
and character are deterministic, although complex, factors.
Planar
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:17:34 -0500, david Windsor <Davo...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> >Copyright exists to ensure that people who create intellectual works are
> >also protected from having their lively hood stolen.
>
> No, it doesn't. It exists because it's easier for governments to
> grant some people rent collection privileges than to secure everyone's
> _equal_ rights.
You are both wrong. Copyright is a social contract: we are
granting a limited monopoly to the creators of works in order
to give them incentive to create more things that will
eventually end up in the public domain (i.e. belonging to
everyone).
Copyright law do not protect some pre-existing right of the
creators. It _creates_ something that looks and feels much
like property (so-called intellectual property), but not quite.
By definition, intellectual property is whatever is protected
by the law. If the law says kifu can't be copyrighted, then
kifu are not property, and there is nothing that should be
protected.
It also isn't an unearned rent collection privilege. You might
argue that the social contract is a bit unbalanced, and maybe
the duration of copyright should be shorter. But you can
hardly call it unearned. People create with the understanding
that they will have this limited monopoly. Otherwise, they
might be doing something else to earn a living.
--
Planar
remove .invalid from my address to send me mail
"I really couldn't care less about Japanese rules." - Chris Lawrence
david Windsor
>
> There is no such thing as a free will.
> I have written an essay about this subject about ten years ago, it has been
> lost, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as a free will.
>
> It's an illusioin.
>
> A: People are the product of their culture, their genes, their memories and
> a bunch of other factors like mental illness, the weather, stress etc.
>
> B. But the main reason there is no such thing as a free will is the fact
> that either:
>
> 1. If quantummechanics follow deterministic laws, then all is predestined
>
> 2. If they don't, then what you perceive as "free" merely is (A) with some
> random thrown in.
> Your brain somewhere originates a thought you think is "original" and "the
> result of a a free choice", but it is no such thing.
>
> Because all factors that influence your decisions are deterministic. Ethics
> and character are deterministic, although complex, factors.
A:I am becoming severely aggravated at the lack of support in your
argument. Your if/else argument is severely flawed inasmuch as it fails
to address relativity. Given the lack of omni-presence in both you and
me, we CANNOT argue a deterministic universe. The second part (as per
your custom) only forces the idea on the reader that "but it is no such
thing" and does not support it whatsoever.
B:And this one is more important, so pay attention. I already said that
both philosophy and quantum mechanics, Universal originistic theory, and
causality are IRRELEVANT at the moment. Your poor argument leaves me
with little desire to pursue the unrelated issues that you have brought up.
Arguing with people like you is so frustrating. "I cant win the issue,
so I will just bring up some complicated issue, like quantum mechanics,
Calculus, combinational game theory, or even better, I will poo-poo
theology so that people who stumble across this thread will think I'm
smart." Grow up, and learn to argue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory.
ro...@telus.net
<rfbu...@cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On 26 Nov 2006 09:08:42 -0800, "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Roy I am not sure exactly what you have been trying to say in this
>>> thread because I can't stop focusing on the repetition of the phrase
>>> "lying idiot" and something about american slavery. Do you think Go
>>> Game records should be copyrighted or not, and why?
>>
>> No, because IMO copyright per se is a violation of people's rights,
>> and should rightly not exist at all, period.
>
>Could you clarify: Are you saying that copyright should not exist
>for game records? Or are you saying that copyright should not
>exist for *anything* (game records, game commentaries, books, films,
>music, ...)?
Not for anything. Copyright is a government-issued and -enforced
privilege that does not advance the general interest.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Well you have offered no solid argument to enforce this standpoint...
>you merely compared it to slavery.
The onus of proof is on those who wish to restrict others' liberty,
and I only compared it to slavery because you were making the same
argument that slave owners made to defend slavery.
Anyway, here's an argument: if copyright had existed in Shakespeare's
day, some of his best plays would never have been written, because he
swiped the plots from Marlowe. You see, copyright doesn't just reward
creators. It also stops them from adding their own creativity to
others' works.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<damien....@inria.fr.invalid> wrote:
>In article <456a53b7...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:17:34 -0500, david Windsor <Davo...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Copyright exists to ensure that people who create intellectual works are
>> >also protected from having their lively hood stolen.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It exists because it's easier for governments to
>> grant some people rent collection privileges than to secure everyone's
>> _equal_ rights.
>
>You are both wrong. Copyright is a social contract: we are
>granting a limited monopoly to the creators of works in order
>to give them incentive to create more things that will
>eventually end up in the public domain (i.e. belonging to
>everyone).
Copyright is indeed a politically derived _incentive_ scheme, not
protection of a pre-existing _right_. And it is not a contract,
social or otherwise, because the consideration is all on one side.
>Copyright law do not protect some pre-existing right of the
>creators. It _creates_ something that looks and feels much
>like property (so-called intellectual property), but not quite.
>By definition, intellectual property is whatever is protected
>by the law. If the law says kifu can't be copyrighted, then
>kifu are not property, and there is nothing that should be
>protected.
Correct. Intellectual "property" is an entirely artificial concoction
with no basis in natural right.
>It also isn't an unearned rent collection privilege.
Yes, of course it is.
>You might
>argue that the social contract is a bit unbalanced, and maybe
>the duration of copyright should be shorter. But you can
>hardly call it unearned. People create with the understanding
>that they will have this limited monopoly.
?? So what? Thieves plan their heists with the understanding that
they will get the loot. That doesn't mean it is earned. And are you
perhaps unaware that lots of people have created great works, and
continue to do so, without intellectual property monopoly privileges?
>Otherwise, they
>might be doing something else to earn a living.
Yep. In the case of a lot of rap "artists," that would be a
consummation devoutly to be wished. Does it never _bother_ you that
these no-talent offenses to music are showered with money, while
people who actually work for a living struggle to make ends meet?
Does it never occur to you that something might be fundamentally wrong
in this situation?
-- Roy L
Frank de Groot
> Arguing with people like you is so frustrating. "I cant win the issue, so
> I will just bring up some complicated issue, like quantum mechanics,
> Calculus, combinational game theory, or even better, I will poo-poo
> theology so that people who stumble across this thread will think I'm
> smart."
So.. If I am correct, you claim that neural networks can have a free will,
based on your religious conviction?
I never poo-poo-ed religion.
I merely said that religion has no place in scientific arguments.
-
>> "Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
>>> You pay attention to them, then you add illegal moves due to superko
>>> to that famous 6-bit-per-entry list I've been trying to explain to you.
> "-" wrote:
>> None of this happens very often, yet some of the work done by
>> John Tromp, Bill Spight (or whoever), with positional cycling, can
>> approach a situation where nearly every possible move leads to a
>> superko problem and then that "6-bit-per-entry list" gets rather long.
>> If you "pay attention" to the prior positions then actual information
>> content needed for subsequent positions grows with (3^361) * n,
>> where `n' is the move number, not just (3^361) * 1.
"Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be easier to just calculate 4^361, since any given point
> on the board can have 4 states (empty (legal play), empty(illegal
> superko), stone(black), stone(white)) ?
Of course that's "easier to calculate" but what are you calculating?
You plan to design computer software which will use (4/3)^361 > 10^45
times as much memory?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "david Windsor" <Davo...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> And on a side note, philosophy is not irrational. Science cannot deal
>> with all aspects of the universe, and where it flops (the issue of free
>> will for instance) philosophy makes educated and intellectual attempts
>> at explaining things.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> There is no such thing as a free will.
> I have written an essay about this subject about ten years ago, it has
> been lost, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as a free will.
Without free will you can't assign moral responsibility nor can you
hold people accountable for their actions, nor assign criminal guilt.
> It's an illusioin.
Nothing new. Everything is one illusion pitted against another...
> A: People are the product of their culture, their genes, their memories
> and a bunch of other factors like mental illness, the weather, stress etc.
You mean, of course, people who are programmed, i.e. "sheeple."
> B. But the main reason there is no such thing as a free will is the fact
> that either:
>
> 1. If quantummechanics follow deterministic laws, then all is predestined
However quantum mechanics might not follow deterministic laws.
> 2. If they don't, then what you perceive as "free" merely is (A) with some
> random thrown in.
> Your brain somewhere originates a thought you think is "original" and
> "the result of a a free choice", but it is no such thing.
Needing to have original thoughts is not required to have free will.
> Because all factors that influence your decisions are deterministic.
> Ethics and character are deterministic, although complex, factors.
Ethics involves public discussion so it is not altogether deterministic.
If pan-determinism is true then my own actions influence my decisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------
<ro...@telus.net> wrote:
> ... In the case of a lot of rap "artists," that would be a consummation
> devoutly to be wished. Does it never _bother_ you that these no-talent
> offenses to music are showered with money, while people who actually
> work for a living struggle to make ends meet? Does it never occur to you
> that something might be fundamentally wrong in this situation?
Yes, something is fundamentally wrong in any case: whether people
earn their money or not. These offenses to aesthetic taste persist when
large numbers of "sheeple" insist upon delegating their sovereignty to
external experts, authorities, corporations, political/religious leaders.
The proportionate number of "sheeple" in a population is increased
from liberal social policies designed for reconstituting cannon fodder.
People who want to party are simply being bred for another world war.
They believe war is the normal condition of things because they do
not play peaceful boardgames of mindsports and cognitive strategy.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> So.. If I am correct, you claim that neural networks can have a
> free will, based on your religious conviction?
Somebody, awhile ago, said that the game was "speaking" to us.
> I never poo-poo-ed religion.
> I merely said that religion has no place in scientific arguments.
This does not explain why Carl Sagan spent so much time in a
discussion concerning religion and science - their respective roles -
and writing a science fiction about meeting alien extraterrestrials:
comparing Planet Earth to a single blue pixel. I am contemplating
a theme concerning what might occur were we all to enter another
rapid Ice-Age where the snow keeps dumping, forming deep ice.
Religion enters a picture whenever examining conceptual precepts.
You could have a physics of life or death. Which would you choose,
and why? Science doesn't offer you any persuasive arguments.
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------
He Whose Name We Dare Not Speak
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10868
------------------------------------------------------------
david Windsor
And if copyright didn't exist today, and only six copies of toy story
had been sold (the rest stolen) perhaps pixar would be out of business.
The laws reflect the times.
I dont wanna start a whole 'nother side argument, but could you tell me
a bit about shakespear stealing marlowes plots?
david Windsor
> consummation devoutly to be wished. Does it never _bother_ you that
> these no-talent offenses to music are showered with money, while
> people who actually work for a living struggle to make ends meet?
> Does it never occur to you that something might be fundamentally wrong
> in this situation?
>
> -- Roy L
The mass public showers them with money. They appeal to the current
hypes (not mine) and in doing so, gather the money. Sure it bothers me,
but hey, we live in a capitalist society... You could move to north
korea if you wanted an escape. The fact that certain people have become
rich doing something which leaves a bad taste in your mouth, does not
warrant dis-regarding copyright. What about the teacher who spent his
weekends writing a novel? Or the songwriter who spent three months
writing a composition? If there were no copyrights, when they tried to
sell the ideas, someone with more money could come by and publish/sell
it without paying any due credit.
-
> "-" wrote:
>> Renli claimed to be kungfu:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.go/msg/a0c670565572fc16
"Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ... In order to be assured that it was Renli's account at the time we need
> to narrow it to within plus or minus 60 days of incident. Perhaps tweet
> has record of the account's initial creation date along with all the
> dates of re-registry? That would help clear things up significantly.
Though the 60-day account timeout is advertised it is not always
the case that 60-days applies. IGS reserves the perogative to delete
accounts after the 60-days. That perogative is not always exercised.
Why should they be so busy conducting stale account purges when
there's plenty of hard-drive space and the system is not under strain?
Administrators can probably locate the purge dates, as well as any
(specific) stale-account deletion and new-account creation dates.
I would agree with you if you are stating that there are many layers
of assurance, with some more or less than others. In the case of Renli
I am inclined to be persuaded only with minimal assurance because I
can directly observe how Renli presents himself, a pattern of exchange
in conversations, and certain peculiar ideational obsesssions. If you
upright radio antennae you're likely to pick up undifferentiated traffic.
A more discerning listener prefers to -select- favorite radio channels.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweden: Annual March Against Anti-White Violence
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=10867
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Nowakowski
> Not for anything. Copyright is a government-issued and -enforced
> privilege that does not advance the general interest.
I'm curious. What are your thoughts on privacy and data collection laws
in Europe?
-Jeff
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>> Yep. In the case of a lot of rap "artists," that would be a
>> consummation devoutly to be wished. Does it never _bother_ you that
>> these no-talent offenses to music are showered with money, while
>> people who actually work for a living struggle to make ends meet?
>> Does it never occur to you that something might be fundamentally wrong
>> in this situation?
>
>The mass public showers them with money.
No, it most certainly does not. Government bestows a monopolistic
rent collection privilege on them, reducing supply and increasing
price for their unearned profit. You could with equal "logic" claim
that the public showers the owners of taxi medallions and import
quotas with money. In all theses cases, the public's access to
_opportunities_ is restricted, so they must pay the monopoly price or
do without.
>They appeal to the current
>hypes (not mine) and in doing so, gather the money. Sure it bothers me,
>but hey, we live in a capitalist society... You could move to north
>korea if you wanted an escape.
False dichotomy fallacy.
>The fact that certain people have become
>rich doing something which leaves a bad taste in your mouth, does not
>warrant dis-regarding copyright.
The extravagant wealth showered upon mediocrities under the current
system is a _symptom_ of the fundamental injustice that _does_ warrant
disregarding copyright.
>What about the teacher who spent his
>weekends writing a novel? Or the songwriter who spent three months
>writing a composition?
They probably enjoyed it a lot more than most people enjoy their work.
Same as I enjoy educating economic ignoramuses on Usenet without being
paid for it or getting copyright monopolies.
>If there were no copyrights, when they tried to
>sell the ideas, someone with more money could come by and publish/sell
>it without paying any due credit.
And...? People would have access to the work at much lower prices.
And anyway, credit is a different matter. No one is suggesting that
plagiarism (passing off others' work as one's own) is OK. If I tried
to sell my writing by putting JK Rowling's name on it, that would be
dishonest and fraudulent. If I tried to sell _her_ writing with _my_
name on it, that would be pathetic and fraudulent. But if I sell her
writing with her name on it, it's no different (except legally) from
selling Shakespeare's writing with _his_ name on it.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:33:45 -0500, david Windsor <Davo...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>> On 26 Nov 2006 09:08:42 -0800, "Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Roy I am not sure exactly what you have been trying to say in this
>>>>> thread because I can't stop focusing on the repetition of the phrase
>>>>> "lying idiot" and something about american slavery. Do you think Go
>>>>> Game records should be copyrighted or not, and why?
>>>> No, because IMO copyright per se is a violation of people's rights,
>>>> and should rightly not exist at all, period.
>>> Well you have offered no solid argument to enforce this standpoint...
>>> you merely compared it to slavery.
>>
>> The onus of proof is on those who wish to restrict others' liberty,
>> and I only compared it to slavery because you were making the same
>> argument that slave owners made to defend slavery.
>>
>> Anyway, here's an argument: if copyright had existed in Shakespeare's
>> day, some of his best plays would never have been written, because he
>> swiped the plots from Marlowe. You see, copyright doesn't just reward
>> creators. It also stops them from adding their own creativity to
>> others' works.
>
>And if copyright didn't exist today, and only six copies of toy story
>had been sold (the rest stolen) perhaps pixar would be out of business.
Maybe. But maybe there'd be a hundred other such studios all riffing
off each other's stuff, with the best versions becoming well known,
and all of them cheap as dirt.
>The laws reflect the times.
More vice versa.
>I dont wanna start a whole 'nother side argument, but could you tell me
>a bit about shakespear stealing marlowes plots?
It's well known, though not uncontroversial, as you might imagine.
Google will bring up thousands of hits about it; just start reading
anywhere.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
Privacy is an entirely different issue, but I am also leery of appeals
to privacy, especially as regards the "private" financial dealings of
those who have extensive business with government.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:17:34 -0500, david Windsor <Davo...@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The rights of the people to make use of the kifu aside, what about the
>>> rights of the people who spent hours generating it (+years getting to
>>> the level at which any kifu they generate would be interesting), those
>>> people who payed to own the buildings/equipment which made that game
>>> possible, The people who sat for long boring hours (I say this as
>>> someone who tried and failed to sit through an entire pro match) and
>>> recorded the match, ect.
>>
>> Their rights are protected the same as anyone else's. But you are not
>> talking about rights. You are talking about a privilege of collecting
>> economic rent.
>
>Your absolutely correct, and as soon as you write a paper and establish
>a means by which society can move forward without money, then we can put
>your ideology into effect.
Wikipedia can enlighten you on the subject of economic rent, a
technical term of which you evidently do not know the meaning.
>>> The profit would hardly be un-earned.
>>
>> Any profit that can only be obtained by violating other people's
>> rights is by definition unearned. Did all those people devote effort
>> to creating a game record? Sure they did. Thieves also devote effort
>> to plotting their heists. Does that mean their profits are earned,
>> too?
>
>The notion of thievery is exactly what copyright exists to fight.
Wrong. When a thief takes something, he deprives its rightful owner
of it. When people copy things, the owner still has them, and is
deprived of nothing but an unjust rent. As I predicted, you refuse to
know that fact.
>>> hardly unearned... the sponsors, the recorder, the players all have put
>>> allot of work into creating the potential for games,
>> And somehow, they all managed to make a living before copyright. Such
>> a mystery.
>> To you, that is.
>
>Skirting the issue. Before, there was no Internet, and if you wanted a
>game record, your had to go and get it... I wondering if the vendors
>charged for such access?
Some did, of course. So?
>> And the difference is, their products cannot be used by others without
>> depriving their producers of them. Game records can. You are either
>> willing to know that fact or you are not.
>
>And if you had a go tutor, and 60 other people showed up to your
>lessons, and recorded them with camcorders, they wouldn't be depriving
>you of them, but rightfully, they are yours to observe.
No; rightfully, if the lessons are in a public place, they have a
right to observe and record and benefit by them (net of privacy
issues).
>Copyright isn't
>just a means by which the rich can assure their fortunes. It exists as a
>way for people to preserve the right to creations that can easily be
>stolen.
Garbage. Copying is not stealing. Stop lying.
>Before CD's could be copied, it was not such an issue with
>regard to music.
It most certainly was. I am old enough to remember when music
copyright holders were up in arms about people recording FM broadcasts
on cassette tapes, and wanted government to tax sales of blank tapes
and hand over the swag to the copyright holders.
>Before the zerox machine, books weren't at much risk,
Yes, they were.
>Before digital video, film was not at such a high risk of being stolen.
Copying is not stealing. Stop lying.
>Make no mistake, when I want a song, I DON'T go buy and album, I
>download it... Only, I recognize the owners/creators right to be upset
>at my stealing it.
He might be upset. But then, the holders of unjust privileges are
invariably upset when those privileges are threatened. People who own
taxi medallions scream, shriek, and foam with rage whenever anyone
suggests abolishing them.
-- Roy L
Frank de Groot
> I merely said that religion has no place in scientific arguments.
I should have been more precise because I do think religion can perform an
important role in science.
e.g. a scientist believes in the /design/ of the laws of nature, and
therefore postulatesthat the universe must have intelligent life everywhere,
and further postulates that it would be best if they could communicate,
therefore he strongly believes in superluminal communication, and dedicates
his life to finding the principles involved, if they exist.
So religious conviction can be a powerful motivator, for scientists. Many
scientist believe in God and say they their work is inspired by their
belief.
Frank de Groot
> Wrong. When a thief takes something, he deprives its rightful owner
> of it. When people copy things, the owner still has them, and is
> deprived of nothing but an unjust rent. As I predicted, you refuse to
> know that fact.
This is utter nonsense.
If I build a house with my bare hands and toil five years in building it and
spend 100,000 USD on materials and labor, if I hire subcontractors and spend
the best years of my life building my house, am I not justified in asking a
rent to those that chose to live in my house, those that have not
contributed to building it?
So what is the difference between a house and a computer program that has
been worked on for many years, spent thousands of USD on for libraries, a
program of which its creator could have earned a good living if he would
have chosen employment instead of investing all his time, money, effort and
money on for half a decade, a decade or more?
Copyright is a principle, alien to the more primitive societies because they
do not understand the concept of collaboration, community etc.
One talented person spends his entire life to create something beautiful for
the world (a pianist for example), does he not deserve to eat?
If 10,000 people buy his records, the music will be very cheap and he will
eat.
Perhaps you are confused with "Big Business" monopolization of things like
software patents (a bad concept), medicines, music etc. Those things are so
expensive not due to the R&D or efforts involved, but only due to the "Free
Market" (which isn't free at all, especially not in the West becasue in
Africa, people can buy expensive Coca Cola but in the West, we can't buy
cheap African fruit juices).
Frank de Groot
> Privacy is an entirely different issue, but I am also leery of appeals
> to privacy, especially as regards the "private" financial dealings of
> those who have extensive business with government.
Here in Norway, every autumn, the printed and internet newspapers publish,
for every taxpayer in the country, a list of income received, tax paid and
money in the bank. With name, surname and city of the person.
The reason: "We want to have openness".
OK.
So what happened was that folks started to compile lists of old people with
more than 1 million USD in the bank, and pay them a visit.
Best case, they were sold on "investment schemes". Worst case, they got
murdered in their own house.
Romanian and Lithuanian gangs now sell those lists to the highest bidder.
Your rejection of the right to privacy is very dangerous in good times, and
in bad times it can lead to holocaust.
The naivity of people like you is astounding an appalling and seen your
rabid defence of Copyright violation - claiming Copyright is "theft" - (You
mean PATENTS - fool!) I can only surmise you're some kind of new-age hippy
communist brainwashed sod.
Extreme left wingers like yourself are more dangerous than extreme right
wingers. Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot killed more than Hitler, the Popes and the
Bush family.
Ben Finney
> If I build a house with my bare hands and toil five years in
> building it and spend 100,000 USD on materials and labor, if I hire
> subcontractors and spend the best years of my life building my
> house, am I not justified in asking a rent to those that chose to
> live in my house, those that have not contributed to building it?
Yes, because for every person who lives in that house, another
person's possible use of it is restricted. A house's intrinsic value
is naturally finite in the amount that it can be shared.
> So what is the difference between a house and a computer program
> that has been worked on for many years, spent thousands of USD on
> for libraries, a program of which its creator could have earned a
> good living if he would have chosen employment instead of investing
> all his time, money, effort and money on for half a decade, a decade
> or more?
The difference is that a computer program can be indefinitely shared
without reducing the quality or availability of it. A computer
program's intrinsic value is not limited in the amount that it can be
shared.
> Copyright is a principle, alien to the more primitive societies
> because they do not understand the concept of collaboration,
> community etc.
What an interesting and counterfactual opinion. To conclude that
societies that do not restrict the flow of ideas and sharing are
"primitive", and lack concepts of collaboration and community, seems
highly disingenuous.
> One talented person spends his entire life to create something
> beautiful for the world (a pianist for example), does he not deserve
> to eat?
Non sequitur. Someone's labour is not automatically deserving of
reward. It is up to the people who benefit from that labour to
negotiate with the provider what the price should be.
> Perhaps you are confused with "Big Business" monopolization of
> things like software patents (a bad concept), medicines, music
> etc.
You're right that those are quite separate issues to copyright.
Copyright is, however, another form of artificially-granted monopoly,
not a natural right; and it must be justified on the basis of the
benefits and detriments to the people who grant that monopoly.
--
\ "I bought a dog the other day. I named him Stay. It's fun to |
`\ call him. 'Come here, Stay! Come here, Stay!' He went insane. |
_o__) Now he just ignores me and keeps typing." -- Steven Wright |
Ben Finney
Frank de Groot
> The difference is that a computer program can be indefinitely shared
> without reducing the quality or availability of it. A computer
> program's intrinsic value is not limited in the amount that it can be
> shared.
That's ideology from a primitive mind - a mind that can't grasp the concept
of one who creates and many who share the cost of that creation.
The more that buy, the cheaper the product. The more that steal, the more
expensive the product until the creator can't eat any more and stops
developing the product. In such primitive societies, there will be no more
advanced expressions of creativity than cave paintings, lip ppiercings,
tattoos and drummming.
> What an interesting and counterfactual opinion. To conclude that
> societies that do not restrict the flow of ideas and sharing are
> "primitive", and lack concepts of collaboration and community, seems
> highly disingenuous.
You are turning everything 180 degrees around AND you're defining
"primitive" to suit your own needs.
Primitive means in a low state of development. Show me one single primitive
society that has Copyright Law, THEN tell me I was wrong!
> Non sequitur. Someone's labour is not automatically deserving of
> reward. It is up to the people who benefit from that labour to
> negotiate with the provider what the price should be.
Exactly. They can BUY it or NOT buy it. STEALING it implies they acknowledge
it has value, but they refuse to pay it due to a criminal mind.
Remind me to put "Ben Finney" and "Ian Davis" on my list of people who
publicly declared they support the theft of Copyrighted computer software.
Ben Finney
> "Ben Finney" <bignose+h...@benfinney.id.au> wrote
>
> > The difference is that a computer program can be indefinitely
> > shared without reducing the quality or availability of it. A
> > computer program's intrinsic value is not limited in the amount
> > that it can be shared.
>
> That's ideology from a primitive mind - a mind that can't grasp the
> concept of one who creates and many who share the cost of that
> creation.
The creation has a cost. That cost, in the case of a purely digital
product like a computer program, is unrelated to the number of times
it is copied. I have no quarrel with value being paid for; but the
value is in the creation of the work, not in copying it.
> The more that buy, the cheaper the product.
No. The number of copies made is unrelated to the cost to create the
product, and the effort of creating the work is unrelated to the cost
of copying. Rewarding the effort of creation is a matter for a buyer
to negotiate with the creator, but the buyer does not necessarily get
more value if there are fewer copies.
> > What an interesting and counterfactual opinion. To conclude that
> > societies that do not restrict the flow of ideas and sharing are
> > "primitive", and lack concepts of collaboration and community, seems
> > highly disingenuous.
>
> You are turning everything 180 degrees around AND you're defining
> "primitive" to suit your own needs.
I wasn't defining it; I was noting your use of it. If you don't think
it's relevant, we'll let it go.
I note you seem to still hold to the assertion that cultures choosing
not to impose artificial monopolies on sharing of information are
lacking "the concepts of collaboration and community".
> > Non sequitur. Someone's labour is not automatically deserving of
> > reward. It is up to the people who benefit from that labour to
> > negotiate with the provider what the price should be.
>
> Exactly. They can BUY it or NOT buy it.
They can negotiate a reward with the creator for the creation of the
work. Once the work is created and distributed, the creator can't
limit copies made by others except by an artifically imposed
monopoly. That monopoly must be justified for the benefit it gives in
return for artificially restricting the natural state of the work.
> Remind me to put "Ben Finney" and "Ian Davis" on my list of people
> who publicly declared they support the theft of Copyrighted computer
> software.
I recognise no relevance of the word "theft" to the actions you're
describing. If you mean "copyright infringement", I have already said
that I support the negotiation of a price between buyer and seller for
the creation effort of a work. If you choose to misinterpret that I
can only let my words stand for themselves.
I think this discussion is rapidly approaching the point where I'm not
interested.
--
\ "I hope some animal never bores a hole in my head and lays its |
`\ eggs in my brain, because later you might think you're having a |
_o__) good idea but it's just eggs hatching." -- Jack Handey |
Ben Finney
Planar
david Windsor <Davo...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> The mass public showers them with money. They appeal to the current
> hypes (not mine) and in doing so, gather the money. Sure it bothers me,
> but hey, we live in a capitalist society...
In this case, the only difference between capitalism and
communism, is that communism creates state monopolies,
whiles capitalism creates private monopolies.
I'm not sure which one I would like better. Fortunately,
we have laws that create and nurture a free-market
economy, which is much better than both.
--
Planar
remove .invalid from my address to send me mail
"Surprise. Then just use AGA rules and that's it." - Robert Jasiek
Planar
> ?? So what? Thieves plan their heists with the understanding that
> they will get the loot. That doesn't mean it is earned.
Arguing by analogy just doesn't work.
> And are you
> perhaps unaware that lots of people have created great works, and
> continue to do so, without intellectual property monopoly privileges?
Of course I know that. The standard argument is that you get
_more_ great works by creating artificial monopolies, because
there is more incentive.
> Yep. In the case of a lot of rap "artists," that would be a
> consummation devoutly to be wished.
Who owns the monopoly on rap? Copyright is arguably acceptable
because it is only a monopoly on one particular work which,
supposedly in most cases, wouldn't have been created in the
absence of copyright. If you thing rap artists get too much
money, go ahead and create some rap. Copyright law doesn't
prevent you from competing with them.
> Does it never _bother_ you that
> these no-talent offenses to music are showered with money, while
> people who actually work for a living struggle to make ends meet?
I don't judge other people's taste. Some of the artists I love
are also extremely rich. Does it bother me?
> Does it never occur to you that something might be fundamentally wrong
> in this situation?
In my opinion, what is fundamentally wrong is the numbers.
95 years is way too much. I'm fulfilling my part of the
contract, and it's only my grandchildren who will get the
compensation.
Oh, and copyright term extensions are fundamentally wrong
because they are retroactive. I'm quite willing to call
them "unearned rent", yes.
--
Planar
remove .invalid from my address to send me mail
"Surprise. Then just use AGA rules and that's it." - Robert Jasiek
Frank de Groot
> I have no quarrel with value being paid for; but the
> value is in the creation of the work, not in copying it.
Stop alleging that I claimed anything of the sort.
> No. The number of copies made is unrelated to the cost to create the
> product, and the effort of creating the work is unrelated to the cost
> of copying. Rewarding the effort of creation is a matter for a buyer
> to negotiate with the creator, but the buyer does not necessarily get
> more value if there are fewer copies.
I never siad that either. I said that when people find it valuable enough to
risk jailtime or a fine in stealing it, then at that moment the creator has
lost income from the thief. The thief would perhaps be prepared to pay 1 USD
or 10 cents, fact remains when you go hunting for bootleg copies and risk
(an ever increasing risk) of getting caught, then the product has value to
you, and you are stealing that value that it is worth to you from the
author.
> I note you seem to still hold to the assertion that cultures choosing
> not to impose artificial monopolies on sharing of information are
> lacking "the concepts of collaboration and community".
You are a liar.
A computer program is not just "information".
I can, with the same insane "logic" claim that your children are merely a
"collection of molecules" and say that I can do whatever with them what I
like because buckets of molucules have no parents, no feelings, no rights
etc.
> They can negotiate a reward with the creator for the creation of the
> work. Once the work is created and distributed, the creator can't
> limit copies made by others except by an artifically imposed
> monopoly.
Your proposal of abolishing all laws will lead to the Law of the Strongest.
That can be fine if you are very strong or are a member of a very strong
clan, but for us mere mortals the rule of Law is preferable to your proposed
"Clan justice" system where rules do not exist and nobody will ever bother
to put much effort into anything exept their own house.
> That monopoly must be justified for the benefit it gives in
> return for artificially restricting the natural state of the work.
You sound more and more brainwashed and insane.
"Natural state" of the work? The "natural state" is in my own head, you
moron!
I decide to produce the work exactly BECAUSE there are laws to guarantee me
at least some minimum amount of income from it.
You think software and music take no effort to create and therefore "belong
to everyone". You're one egocentric S.O.B!
Move to North Korea and try to indoctrinate Kim Yong Il with this crap, see
what he thinks.
I don't give you much chance buddy, because he signed the Berne convention
on Copyright a few years ago.
> I recognise no relevance of the word "theft" to the actions you're
> describing.
Those are the worst. Those that feel no remorse are psychopaths and
sociopaths.
Planar
"Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you "pay attention" to the prior positions then actual information
> > content needed for subsequent positions grows with (3^361) * n,
> > where `n' is the move number, not just (3^361) * 1.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to just calculate 4^361, since any given point on
> the board can have 4 states (empty (legal play), empty(illegal
> superko), stone(black), stone(white)) ?
Nice idea, but what are you trying to count exactly?
With your representation, you can have two games that have one
common "position", but, upon playing the same move in both games,
end up in two different "positions".
david Windsor
> An noise sounding like Frank de Groot said:
>> "david Windsor" <Davo...@yahoo.ca> wrote
>>
>>> And on a side note, philosophy is not irrational. Science cannot deal with
>>> all aspects of the universe, and where it flops (the issue of free will
>>> for instance) philosophy makes educated and intellectual attempts at
>>> explaining things.
>> I have written an essay about this subject about ten years ago, it has been
>> lost, but I can assure you that there is no such thing as a free will.
>>
> I have written an essay about this subject about ten years ago, it has been
>
> D.
Heheh.
Frank de Groot
>> This is such thing as a free will.
>> I have written an essay about this subject about ten years ago, it has
>> been
>> lost, but I can assure you that this is such thing as a free will.
>>
>> D.
> Heheh.
There is a difference between a lie and truth, and thinking a little and
thinking a lot.
Frank de Groot
> I was merely pointing out the absurdity of your statement. It could be
> likened
> to something one would hear in a childrens playground.
Baloney.
It's your opinion that there is no such thing as a free will, and you use
strong terms to convey that opinion.
I do the same, and the essay-remarks serves to show that I have thought long
and hard about it and I could see no way, with current scientific
understanding on quantum mechanics, that there is a possibility of a "free
will".
Like I said, if QM is deterministic, then is is precluded and if it is
non-deterministic, then neither can there be a free will.
It seems obvious to me but - then again I thought hundreds of hours about
this when I was younger.
We are automata under the illusion of having a free will.
I register however that you are an infantile person, so adult discourse
doesn't seem to be an option.
Only infantile persons feel the need to "sandwich" their postings with a
"funny" (but derogatory) quoting remark and a lengthy, self-glorifying sig.
Jeff Nowakowski
> Privacy is an entirely different issue, but I am also leery of appeals
> to privacy, especially as regards the "private" financial dealings of
> those who have extensive business with government.
Why is it "entirely different"? Privacy laws take away the rights of
those who would collect and spread information, which is very similar to
copyright laws.
However, by your remarks, it seems that you have different ideals for
governments, corporations, and those seeking profits than for an
ordinary individual. It's an understandable position, but then your
extreme analogy with slave-owners works against it in the exact same way.
-Jeff
david Windsor
> "David Gillen" <Bel...@RedBrick.DCU.IE> wrote
> I do the same, and the essay-remarks serves to show that I have thought long
> and hard about it and I could see no way, with current scientific
> understanding on quantum mechanics, that there is a possibility of a "free
> will".
'
Your essay does nothing, because like the rest of your argument, you not
supported the claim at all.
Frank de Groot
> Your essay does nothing, because like the rest of your argument, you not
> supported the claim at all.
I have supported my claim with a few remarks on the nature (and possible
nature) of Quantum mechanics, but if you do not /understand/ the
argumentation then all bets are off. Because so far I have seen no
refutation from you.
Mef
Frank de Groot wrote:
> Like I said, if QM is deterministic, then is is precluded and if it is
> non-deterministic, then neither can there be a free will.
> It seems obvious to me but - then again I thought hundreds of hours about
> this when I was younger.
>
> We are automata under the illusion of having a free will.
>
Your entire argument is based on the assumption that QM is an adaquate
representation of the nature of the Universe. However, QM (and in
fact all of science) is merely based on our perceptions of the
Universe, and thus have no basis on anything without a mind to perceive
them. Nature of the Universe and nature of our perception of the
Universe are not necessarily one and the same. Since free will would
be an issue of the mind, to truly get to the bottom of this argument
would would need to go beyond science into philosophy.
Cheers,
Mef
Frank de Groot
> Your entire argument is based on the assumption that QM is an adaquate
> representation of the nature of the Universe.
It is the best representation we have.
And so far, we send probes to Mars, using navigation based on our
understanding of quantum mechanics.
We scan brains (SPECT, NMR) due to our understanding of nuclear spin etc.
And there is no need to have THE accurate representation found, the only
thing needed for my statement to be valid is THAT there is one.
So far, all experimental data testifies that there IS.
> However, QM (and in
> fact all of science) is merely based on our perceptions of the
> Universe, and thus have no basis on anything without a mind to perceive
> them.
I have news for you "Mef". When you're dead, the Universe keeps on going for
a few billion years more.
So your statement is nonsensical.
> Nature of the Universe and nature of our perception of the
> Universe are not necessarily one and the same.
What has that to do with the issue at hand?
My point is that if there is such a thing as the "LAws of Nature", then by
that very fact we can only be automata.
If there is something like "random" in nature (which I suspect is not true),
even then, our "free will" only SEEMS a free will.
Our actions and thoughts are the product of our physical form, outside
influences acting upon that form, and the Laws of Nature taking their
course. There is no room for "free will", except when you believe in magic.
> Since free will would
> be an issue of the mind, to truly get to the bottom of this argument
> would would need to go beyond science into philosophy.
Abject nonsense.
The mind is made of quantum material, which behaves according to the laws of
nature.
There is no need to invoke pseudo-science in a feeble attempt to deny this.
Jerzy
news:IICdnQzTzviln_HY...@giganews.com...
> e.g. a scientist believes in the /design/ of the laws of nature, and
> therefore postulatesthat the universe must have intelligent life
> everywhere, and further postulates that it would be best if they could
> communicate, therefore he strongly believes in superluminal communication,
> and dedicates his life to finding the principles involved, if they exist.
>
And so you limit scientists to the role of passive finders of God`s rules.
On the other hand godlike creatures are active and inventive and are capable
of creating whole new universies.
BTW I assume that you are a passive creature who can only copy what others
have created e.g. by playing Go.
Frank de Groot
> On the other hand godlike creatures are active and inventive and are
> capable of creating whole new universies.
You /gotta/ stop watching "Lord of the Rings" while stoned, "Jerzy".
> BTW I assume that you are a passive creature who can only copy what others
> have created e.g. by playing Go.
Then again, ass-umptions are like assholes, everybody has them and nobody
cares about your ass-umptions.
But..
I welcome the opportunity to plug my Go software!
You say my software is un-original, hm?
What about the unique Sensei-Search?
The unique Audio-commentary in SGF?
The unique Rich Text in SGF?
The unique stereo sound on the skinnable 3D Go board?
The unique huge "human hand" cursor?
The unique pattern expert system?
The unique complex-query SQL Go game database with editable query history?
Read more about the unique and creative features of Moyo Go Studio here:
http://www.moyogo.com/Screenshots.htm
..and.. It's Christmas soon!
The dollar has devaluated 2 USD against the Euro the past days and the slide
will continue - it pays off to order now because MGS's price is based on a
amount in Euro (49 Euro).
Moyo Go Studio: The West's best selling Go software!
www.moyogo.com
Frank de Groot
> The dollar has devaluated 2 USD against the Euro the past days
Should be: "MGS got 2 USD more expensive the past days due to the
devaluation of the Dollar".
david Windsor
You've done no such thing. You've made abstract comparisons, poor
analogy, and cast insult at anyone who would argue against you.
> A:I am becoming severely aggravated at the lack of support in your argument. Your if/else argument is severely flawed inasmuch as it fails to address relativity. Given the lack of omni-presence in both you and me, we CANNOT argue a deterministic universe. The second part (as per your custom) only forces the idea on the reader that "but it is no such thing" and does not support it whatsoever.
To which you responded
> If I am correct, you claim that neural networks can have a free will,
> based on your religious conviction?
Which not only has no basis in anything I've said, you failed to address
my response to it.... You have no idea about my religious orientation,
for all you know, I could worship those sub-atomic particles your so
fond of.
> B:And this one is more important, so pay attention. I already said that both philosophy and quantum mechanics, Universal originistic theory, and causality are IRRELEVANT at the moment. Your poor argument leaves me with little desire to pursue the unrelated issues that you have brought up.
You cannot serious suggest an essay as proofs in your argument, and then
fail to materialize it without expecting to look like a dunce, can you?
On the issue of free will. In the limited scope at which we are able to
perceive the universe, sub-atomic collision, universal expansion,
deterministic time lines and pre-destined behavior are either completely
or partially hidden from comprehension. That is to say that, no one
person at one time can be simultaneously aware of all actions that are
currently occurring, and have occurred which lead to the current
situation under scrutiny.
One can argue then, that because a person can neither be aware of
everything, or even a small portion of everything, he or she must chose
their actions based on the limited scope of their understanding. Even if
it is argued that the 'choice' is actually a result of an ever
coinciding universe, it cannot be forgotten that the person who makes
that choice is part of the universe, and by proxy is responsible for it
(or at least a very small part of it.)
If this were not true, then by the determinist view, all people would
be absolved morally of the crimes/violation they commit. Murder would
not be the action of a murderer, but rather, a murderous set of
causality. Such is NOT the Globally accepted view. In any country, civil
law dictates that the individual is singly responsible for his/her own
actions.
Regardless of whether or not we are subject to predetermined time line,
the intellectual/legal and moral consensus is that one can either choose
to act, or not to act (whether that act be moral/lawful or
unmoral/chaotic).
> I register however that you are an infantile person, so adult discourse
> doesn't seem to be an option.
> Only infantile persons feel the need to "sandwich" their postings with a
> "funny" (but derogatory) quoting remark and a lengthy, self-glorifying sig.
Someone who name calls should hardly judge another person for being
infantile.
> But only by a lying idiot.
Even worse, there you are calling someone an idiot who does not exist.
> Philosophy is not science, and therefore utterly irrelevant
Determinism is philosophy. someone who argues determinism so hard.
Finally.... DETERMINISM HAS NO BEARING ON COPYRIGHT! as soon as you fall
behind on one subject you move to the next. Its sad and 'infantile' to
use an appropriate quote.
If you wanna argue determinism so vehemently.... The please do address
the issue of first cause. The burden of proof is yours.
Frank de Groot
> You cannot serious suggest an essay as proofs in your argument,
You gotta be sooo seriously kidding..
I never said anything of the sort. I only said I wrote something about it
once, a long time ago, and that it is gone so I can't copy the argumentation
here. And because I'm rather busy writing Go software at the moment, I can't
rewrite the whole thing.
But IMO there is no "free" will, in the sense that we are independent of
outside and inside factors.
Your silly, childish attempts to claim I present my lost essay as "proof" of
my POV is beond contempt of course and disqualifies you as someone I would
spend more time on.
> On the issue of free will. In the limited scope at which we are able to
> perceive the universe, sub-atomic collision, universal expansion,
> deterministic time lines and pre-destined behavior are either completely
> or partially hidden from comprehension.
It all doesn't matter. Either there are laws of nature, or there aren't. If
there are, then there is no free will. Q.E.D.
If there aren't, then there is also no free will. Q.E.D.
I leave the proof to the reader - it's obvious.
> One can argue then, that because a person can neither be aware of
> everything, or even a small portion of everything, he or she must chose
> their actions based on the limited scope of their understanding. Even if
> it is argued that the 'choice' is actually a result of an ever coinciding
> universe, it cannot be forgotten that the person who makes that choice is
> part of the universe, and by proxy is responsible for it (or at least a
> very small part of it.)
A bunch of atoms can't be responsible for anything.
Just because your head contains a biological neural network doesn't mean
it's "responsible".
Its output signals are a function of its input signals, and that function is
slightly influenced by the hardware (genetics) and chemical influences
(hormones, drugs etc.). But no magic here.
> If this were not true, then by the determinist view, all people would be
> absolved morally of the crimes/violation they commit.
What is "morally"?
Define "moral" in absolute terms.
You can't.
What is "moral" to humans, is immoral from the point of view of other
lifeforms on this planet.
> Murder would not be the action of a murderer, but rather, a murderous set
> of causality.
You - a complete and utter layperson - haven't heard of Multiple Y syndrome.
25% or thereabouts of all men in prison suffer from it.
It predisposes men to becoming criminals (violence, rape).
But in your shielded world of political correctness, these facts don't
penetrate.
You can keep on claiming that people are "responsible for their actions" and
can make "free-will based choices" but it's baloney.
The only thing separating us from other mammals is a neocortex, and it
functions as a memory- & prediction unit.
No ethics there.
There is only genetics, instinct, reward/punishment/fear etc. etc. and all
our actions are direct results of that.
You do not kill someone because certain tresholds with you are not crossed,
Multiple-X people do kill because their tresholds are lower, etc. etc.
Everything has a cause, nothing is "magic".
> Such is NOT the Globally accepted view.
I don't give a flying fuck.
I care only about the truth (= scientific proof, logic etc.)
No cultural/political/religious/magical bullshit.
> In any country, civil law dictates that the individual is singly
> responsible for his/her own actions.
Who cares.
Civil law does not supercede the laws of nature.
I bet you a tenner that it won't start doing it before I'm six feet deep.
> Regardless of whether or not we are subject to predetermined time line,
Why such an extremistic view?
It's either "free" with you, or "predetermined timeline", Jeez!
> Someone who name calls should hardly judge another person for being
> infantile.
Nonsense. When a killer calls a killer a killer, is one killer suddenly not
a killer anymore?
Or are killers not allowed to call other killers "killers"?
What kind of fake argument is this?
>> But only by a lying idiot.
>
> Even worse, there you are calling someone an idiot who does not exist.
Hey buddy - I never called you a lying idiot. You are now quoting something
Fu Ren Li said (or somebody else)
If you are unable to read a UseNet posting, then it's worse with you than I
thought.
I do not take lightly to falsely attributing quotes to me though.
I probably will hunt you down Usenet for the rest of your miserable life if
you don't apologize for it right here and right now.
I have kept this discourse civil, unlike you, who are now lying about me
cursing you.
Shame on you!
Mef
Frank de Groot wrote:
> "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Your entire argument is based on the assumption that QM is an adaquate
> > representation of the nature of the Universe.
>
> It is the best representation we have.
> And so far, we send probes to Mars, using navigation based on our
> understanding of quantum mechanics.
>
> We scan brains (SPECT, NMR) due to our understanding of nuclear spin etc.
>
> And there is no need to have THE accurate representation found, the only
> thing needed for my statement to be valid is THAT there is one.
>
> So far, all experimental data testifies that there IS.
>
This begs the question. Given that experimental data is all based on
how we perceive the universe, therefore it cannot be used to justify
that the way we perceive the universe is an adaequate measure of the
true nature of the universe.
> > However, QM (and in
> > fact all of science) is merely based on our perceptions of the
> > Universe, and thus have no basis on anything without a mind to perceive
> > them.
>
> I have news for you "Mef". When you're dead, the Universe keeps on going for
> a few billion years more.
> So your statement is nonsensical.
>
My statement is sensical, and truth be told you cannot prove your
statement to me, because the act of proving something to me assumes my
existence. It is impossible for me to think of a world that is not
based on my perceptions of the world, therefore I cannot picture a
world where I do not exist to observe it.
How can I think of the Universe? Is it a picture? Every picture I can
think of is based on my sight. Every sound based on my hearing it.
Every thought or action based on my experiencing it. Without me, I
have no universe to consider.
>
> > Nature of the Universe and nature of our perception of the
> > Universe are not necessarily one and the same.
>
> What has that to do with the issue at hand?
> My point is that if there is such a thing as the "LAws of Nature", then by
> that very fact we can only be automata.
>
Presume there is such a thing as a will. A will being an agent of
causuality that can effect, but need not a cause in and of itself.
Where does this fit in your laws of nature? And how can you argue
against this without A: Assuming your laws of nature, or B: Assuming
the inital premise is wrong?
> If there is something like "random" in nature (which I suspect is not true),
> even then, our "free will" only SEEMS a free will.
>
> Our actions and thoughts are the product of our physical form, outside
> influences acting upon that form, and the Laws of Nature taking their
> course. There is no room for "free will", except when you believe in magic.
>
Or when you believe that there may be something outside of your natural
laws.
> > Since free will would
> > be an issue of the mind, to truly get to the bottom of this argument
> > would would need to go beyond science into philosophy.
>
> Abject nonsense.
>
> The mind is made of quantum material, which behaves according to the laws of
> nature.
> There is no need to invoke pseudo-science in a feeble attempt to deny this.
I am not invoking psuedo-science, I'm invoking philosophy, science has
nothing to do with it because science has a significant number of
assumptions that philosophy doesn't. Your entire argument is based on
taking the "laws of nature" as the sole absolute and only truth. While
that may be true, it's still a postulate, and cannot be proven. In the
mean time, to me, everything I've experienced seems to suggest I have a
will, which also can't be proven, but at least I'm willing to accept
that I'm also basing it on a postulate.
Cheers,
Mef
Frank de Groot
> This begs the question. Given that experimental data is all based on
> how we perceive the universe,
Nonsense.
Can you see X-rays or measure the speed of light with your eyes?
Instruments do that. Experiments prove that the universe behaves according
to our theories, or they disprove it.
There is nothign methaphysical or magical or religious or mysterious about
it.
I can see you are far, far away from any field of hard (= real) science.
That's not a problem, and you are entitled to your opinion, but you are
heaping fallacy upon fallacy.
Sorry. I had these discussions when I was a pre-teen and I am not going to
repeat them here.
If you think "everything is relative and therefore nothing is what it seems"
then good luck to you.
> My statement is sensical, and truth be told you cannot prove your
> statement to me,
To your detriment. If you are unable to make the logical deductions that's
not my problem.
> because the act of proving something to me assumes my
> existence. It is impossible for me to think of a world that is not
> based on my perceptions of the world, therefore I cannot picture a
> world where I do not exist to observe it.
Yet we keep on living when you're gone Mef. I saw people around me die and I
kept on living.
It's insanity, your view of the world.
(More accurately, psychiatrists call this "solipsism").
> How can I think of the Universe? Is it a picture? Every picture I can
> think of is based on my sight. Every sound based on my hearing it.
> Every thought or action based on my experiencing it. Without me, I
> have no universe to consider.
It irrelevant to the topic at hand. How you percieve your neuronal inputs
are irrelevant.
Relevant is only that there is a fixed set of laws of nature. If that is
true, then we can't have a free will, not even when you throw "random" in
the quantum-mechanical mix. BTW the nondeterministic features at the
quantum-level average themselves pretty much out at the microscopic level.
> Presume there is such a thing as a will. A will being an agent of
> causuality that can effect, but need not a cause in and of itself.
Impossible,
No neural network will randomly fire its neurons.
There always is a cause, however small or irretrievably obscured.
> Where does this fit in your laws of nature?
Mef my dear fellow - those laws are not just mine.
> Or when you believe that there may be something outside of your natural
> laws.
I have stated before that as soon as someone brings religion or ghosts or
magic into the mix, I'm outta here.
> I am not invoking psuedo-science, I'm invoking philosophy,
Philosophy is not a science and is irrelevant 100% of the time when it
pertains scientific facts.
That's why it's called "philosopy", with a poetic licence I translate that
as: "Every asshole has an opinion, and here we have a little club of them,
ventilating them".
> nothing to do with it because science has a significant number of
> assumptions that philosophy doesn't.
Philosophy does not exist. It should be called "common sense" and it should
not be so rare that it became a (pseudo) "science".
> Your entire argument is based on
> taking the "laws of nature" as the sole absolute and only truth.
There is nothing else than the laws of nature.
I believe in a creator of the universe, and still I believe this creator is
powerless here to change one iota of those laws, initially designed.
The laws are "perfect" and they are the only things we have. No magic, no
ghosts, souls, gods or other nonsense.
> that may be true, it's still a postulate, and cannot be proven.
Occam's Razor.
Why invent something new, unproven and complicated when the existing Laws of
Nature will do?
Lots of things cannot be proven. Doesn't mean you should go and make them up
and start believing in them.
I believe much more in alien bases on the dark side of the moon than I do in
the existence of a free will.
Simply because for the former is some fragmented evidence, for the latter
nil.
> mean time, to me, everything I've experienced seems to suggest I have a
> will
Yeah that's what they all say/think.
It merely seems that way to you.
david Windsor
>> Even worse, there you are calling someone an idiot who does not exist.
>
> Hey buddy - I never called you a lying idiot. You are now quoting something
> Fu Ren Li said (or somebody else)
> If you are unable to read a UseNet posting, then it's worse with you than I
> thought.
A retarded chimp is smarter than you. Learn to read, I said you called
someone who does not exist an lying idiot, not me... Why don't you take
some of your own advice and 'not waste any more time on me.'
> I do not take lightly to falsely attributing quotes to me though.
Where did I do that?
> Everything has a cause, nothing is "magic".
You quoted me as saying magic... find that too.
david Windsor
>
>> Where does this fit in your laws of nature?
>
> Mef my dear fellow - those laws are not just mine.
>
Your quite good at dancing around other peoples questions... Keep it up,
and you will never have to have a real argument in your life!
Mef
Frank de Groot wrote:
> "Mef" <mwil...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > This begs the question. Given that experimental data is all based on
> > how we perceive the universe,
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Can you see X-rays or measure the speed of light with your eyes?
No, but they affect me, the burn me, they image me, they do all other
sorts of things that I perceive.
> There is nothign methaphysical or magical or religious or mysterious about
> it.
> I can see you are far, far away from any field of hard (= real) science.
>
Funny that you assume so much about me. As I write this I'm in a lab
working on an experiment that's been running for about 8 hours.
> That's not a problem, and you are entitled to your opinion, but you are
> heaping fallacy upon fallacy.
What fallacy am I using?
> Sorry. I had these discussions when I was a pre-teen and I am not going to
> repeat them here.
> If you think "everything is relative and therefore nothing is what it seems"
> then good luck to you.
>
Ah, now it is you who is using the straw man fallacy.
>
> > My statement is sensical, and truth be told you cannot prove your
> > statement to me,
>
> To your detriment. If you are unable to make the logical deductions that's
> not my problem.
>
> > because the act of proving something to me assumes my
> > existence. It is impossible for me to think of a world that is not
> > based on my perceptions of the world, therefore I cannot picture a
> > world where I do not exist to observe it.
>
> Yet we keep on living when you're gone Mef. I saw people around me die and I
> kept on living.
> It's insanity, your view of the world.
> (More accurately, psychiatrists call this "solipsism").
>
I may be insane, but my fundamental premise stands. I have nothing
against science, it's amazingly useful and practical. It's just always
important to understand the role of science, and the role of
philosophy.
> > How can I think of the Universe? Is it a picture? Every picture I can
> > think of is based on my sight. Every sound based on my hearing it.
> > Every thought or action based on my experiencing it. Without me, I
> > have no universe to consider.
>
> It irrelevant to the topic at hand. How you percieve your neuronal inputs
> are irrelevant.
> Relevant is only that there is a fixed set of laws of nature. If that is
> true, then we can't have a free will, not even when you throw "random" in
> the quantum-mechanical mix. BTW the nondeterministic features at the
> quantum-level average themselves pretty much out at the microscopic level.
>
> > Presume there is such a thing as a will. A will being an agent of
> > causuality that can effect, but need not a cause in and of itself.
>
> Impossible,
> No neural network will randomly fire its neurons.
> There always is a cause, however small or irretrievably obscured.
>
You're assuming there is always a cause. This in and of itself cannot
be proven. It's a reasonable postulate...but still a postulate.
> > Where does this fit in your laws of nature?
>
> Mef my dear fellow - those laws are not just mine.
>
> > Or when you believe that there may be something outside of your natural
> > laws.
>
> I have stated before that as soon as someone brings religion or ghosts or
> magic into the mix, I'm outta here.
>
I see, so let me attempt to clarify this argument:
Point of dispute: This discussion is or isn't a matter of only
science.
Your position is that:
A: This is only a matter of science
and B: As soon as someone mentions something non-scientific you refuse
to argue.
I guess this is what I should expect from Usenet.
> > I am not invoking psuedo-science, I'm invoking philosophy,
>
> Philosophy is not a science and is irrelevant 100% of the time when it
> pertains scientific facts.
> That's why it's called "philosopy", with a poetic licence I translate that
> as: "Every asshole has an opinion, and here we have a little club of them,
> ventilating them".
>
But the issue is whether or not this is only about scientific
facts...I'm saying that cannot decided with only science.
> > nothing to do with it because science has a significant number of
> > assumptions that philosophy doesn't.
>
> Philosophy does not exist. It should be called "common sense" and it should
> not be so rare that it became a (pseudo) "science".
>
This sounds like a philospohical statement if I ever heard one.
> > Your entire argument is based on
> > taking the "laws of nature" as the sole absolute and only truth.
>
> There is nothing else than the laws of nature.
> I believe in a creator of the universe, and still I believe this creator is
> powerless here to change one iota of those laws, initially designed.
> The laws are "perfect" and they are the only things we have. No magic, no
> ghosts, souls, gods or other nonsense.
>
> > that may be true, it's still a postulate, and cannot be proven.
>
> Occam's Razor.
> Why invent something new, unproven and complicated when the existing Laws of
> Nature will do?
>
> Lots of things cannot be proven. Doesn't mean you should go and make them up
> and start believing in them.
> I believe much more in alien bases on the dark side of the moon than I do in
> the existence of a free will.
> Simply because for the former is some fragmented evidence, for the latter
> nil.
>
I'm not trying to say your views are wrong, I'm just trying to say that
there are assumptions at the core of them and that science alone cannot
prove or disprove them.
> > mean time, to me, everything I've experienced seems to suggest I have a
> > will
>
> Yeah that's what they all say/think.
> It merely seems that way to you.
Funny, that's what I've been saying this whole time about science. (=
Coincidentally I get significant mileage out of both science and my
will, so
for the time being I'll stick to my guns and keep working on both.
Cheers,
Mef
-
> "David Gillen" <Bel...@RedBrick.DCU.IE> wrote:
>> I was merely pointing out the absurdity of your statement. It could
>> be likened to something one would hear in a childrens playground.
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> It's your opinion that there is no such thing as a free will, and
> you use strong terms to convey that opinion.
Frank is completely -misstating- the opinion of another person.
> I do the same, and the essay-remarks serves to show that I have
> thought long and hard about it and I could see no way, with current
> scientific understanding on quantum mechanics, that there is a
> possibility of a "free will".
The problem with thinking long and hard concerns the difficulty
of thinking incorrectly, a likelihood once one refuses to play Go...
QM in no way "invalidates" free will. There is some probability that
free will occurs ...
> Like I said, if QM is deterministic, then is is precluded and if it is
> non-deterministic, then neither can there be a free will.
> It seems obvious to me but - then again I thought hundreds of hours
> about this when I was younger.
Frank's problem concerns thinking in isolation: likely to be wrong.
If something is "deterministic" then "deterministic _by_whom_" ? The
difficulty Frank encounters here concerns preoccupation with absolutism.
> We are automata under the illusion of having a free will.
We are just as well under the illusion of being automata....
------------------------------------------------------
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> I have news for you "Mef". When you're dead, the Universe keeps on
> going for a few billion years more. So your statement is nonsensical.
In -which- time-context ? What was "before the Universe" or
"after the Universe" ? Something is seriously amiss with our notions.
> My point is that if there is such a thing as the "LAws of Nature", then
> by that very fact we can only be automata.
These would be "laws of nature" we have ourselves discovered,
so the procedure cannot lead into discovering something unsuitable.
Mistranslation of the Gospel of John, for example, centuries persistent:
------------------
"The literal translation of the Gospel of John, chapter 1,
verses 1 to 5 is as follows:
1. Brasheeth* there was the Milta.**
And that Milta was with God;
and God was that Milta.
2. This was brasheeth with God.
3. Everything was created by His hands,
otherwise nothing that is would exist.
4. Through him there was Life,
and that Life became the spark of humanity
5. And that fire lights the darkness,
and the darkness cannot put it out.
*Brasheeth does not mean: "In the Beginning." It really
means "before the beginning;" that is "before the foundations
of the universe," or "before Creation."
**Milta does not mean: "Logos" or "The Word." The term
was coined by John to mean that Jesus was God in Action.
I have chosen to translate "Milta" as "Manifestation." Jesus
is the Manifestation of God, or He is God Manifest.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/john.html ( directly from the Aramaic )
------------------------
The Messiah's -actual- Aramaic words on the cross:
http://www.v-a.com/bible/words_from_the_cross.html
"In Western theology, this passage has been translated in
error as: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." In the movie
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, Mel Gibson rendered this passage
as: "Ullahi, Ullahi, lamah sabactani." This is a grave distortion of the
truth. "Ullah" is the singular God of Islam. Jesus couldn't have
used the Arabic name of God of the Islamic era. Jesus didn't even
use the title of God "Elohim"; He used the true name of God "Eil" and
He didn't say "sabactani" or "forsaken me"; He said "sh'wik-thani,"
as I've translated above, thus declaring His mission on earth complete
with the fulfillment of his destiny as the Son of Man. As He commended
His Spirit into the hands of His Father, He rejoined His Father in
Heaven. He came from the bosom of His Father and went back to
the bosom of His Father. "Eil" is God's greatest title and name.
------------------
> If there is something like "random" in nature (which I suspect is not true),
> even then, our "free will" only SEEMS a free will.
Frank wishes to avoid the prospect of having free will because he
seeks to absolve himself of any moral responsibility to behave ethically.
> Our actions and thoughts are the product of our physical form, outside
> influences acting upon that form, and the Laws of Nature taking their
> course. There is no room for "free will", except when you believe in magic.
Mircales (and "magic" occur) even if you do not believe in these.
> The mind is made of quantum material, which behaves according to the
> laws of nature.
> There is no need to invoke pseudo-science in a feeble attempt to deny this.
Then what is "quantum material" made of, and why should nature
follow any laws? Architecture without any -cause- of that architecture?
-------------------------------------------------------
"Frank de Groot" <fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
> It all doesn't matter. Either there are laws of nature, or there aren't.
> If there are, then there is no free will. Q.E.D.
> If there aren't, then there is also no free will. Q.E.D.
>
> I leave the proof to the reader - it's obvious.
With some probability there are laws of nature and with some
probability there aren't any laws. Similarly w/r/t free will, or not.
One cannot prove a negative (by asserting `p' is valued at 0 or 1).
> A bunch of atoms can't be responsible for anything.
> Just because your head contains a biological neural network doesn't
> mean it's "responsible".
> Its output signals are a function of its input signals, and that function is
> slightly influenced by the hardware (genetics) and chemical influences
> (hormones, drugs etc.). But no magic here.
Nevertheless, "responsibility" is a feature of some organisms.
> Define "moral" in absolute terms. You can't.
> What is "moral" to humans, is immoral from the point of view of other
> lifeforms on this planet.
Cleaning up one's spiritual garbage on such discussions is a task of
scriptural studies: attending to the house which is temple of the soul.
The absolute to whom Jesus refers cannot be that of authority, i.e. not
a Master, not a Father, not a Leader. Right away, fascism was precluded:
------------------
Matthew 23:11-12 "`Whoever is greatest among you, let him be
a minister for you. "For whoever raises his stature,* becomes
humble, and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." `"
*23:12 Lit. Ar. idiomatic figure of speech: "Raises himself."
http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew-23.html
------------------
The role of a minister is that of servant to spiritual needs of others.
> ... You can keep on claiming that people are "responsible for their actions"
> and can make "free-will based choices" but it's baloney.
> The only thing separating us from other mammals is a neocortex, and it
> functions as a memory- & prediction unit.
> No ethics there.
Brainy people arrive at ethical positions just as well as do people
of heart and of soul. It's all one and the same, with the triune God:
----------------------
"The word `Trinity' appears in the third verse of Paul's Letter
to the Hebrews. In no translation before mine has the word "Trinity"
ever been identified. Paul is supposed to have written his Letters
or Epistles in the Greek language. All the Western translations
have been made from Greek. Perhaps this is why the word "Trinity"
has been treated like a mystery. The word is right there in all
the Ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament Scriptures
of all the Eastern Churches. Why hasn't anyone before me
translated this word as the Trinity? To me this is proof that
Paul's Letters were written in the Ancient Aramaic. The word
"Trinity" is too important a word to ignore. It must be identified
and restored in the Bibles by all the Christian Churches if
they truly believe that the Christian God is Triune."
http://www.v-a.com/bible/hebrews_1-1-3_audio.html
----------------------
> Everything has a cause, nothing is "magic".
Yes, but -why- does everything have a cause? It's magic !
> I bet you a tenner that it won't start doing it before I'm six feet deep.
You'll be dead before you're six feet deep. :-)
- regards
- jb
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aramaic Bible
Jesus Christ spoke Ancient Aramaic, the language in which the
disciples and apostles preached the Gospel and the scribes
recorded the Scriptures. The New Testament has been preserved
in the sacred scribal language since the Apostolic Age. The whole
Bible was preserved in this language by the saints of the Ancient
Church of the East at the cost of their lives. This Church emerged
out of Jerusalem during the 1st Century of Christianity. It was
established by the disciples and apostles of Jesus. The Scriptures
that this Church used were the first ever recorded. The translation
you will find on these pages is made from the original Ancient
Aramaic Scriptures directly into English. This is the first true
translation of the entire New Testament in the English language.
http://www.v-a.com/bible/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
ro...@telus.net
<fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote
>
>> Wrong. When a thief takes something, he deprives its rightful owner
>> of it. When people copy things, the owner still has them, and is
>> deprived of nothing but an unjust rent. As I predicted, you refuse to
>> know that fact.
>
>This is utter nonsense.
No, it is merely something that you do not understand.
>If I build a house with my bare hands and toil five years in building it and
>spend 100,000 USD on materials and labor, if I hire subcontractors and spend
>the best years of my life building my house, am I not justified in asking a
>rent to those that chose to live in my house, those that have not
>contributed to building it?
Sorry, I was referring to _economic_ rent, a technical concept that is
quite different from the vernacular sense of a periodic payment for
use of another's property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
>So what is the difference between a house and a computer program that has
>been worked on for many years, spent thousands of USD on for libraries, a
>program of which its creator could have earned a good living if he would
>have chosen employment instead of investing all his time, money, effort and
>money on for half a decade, a decade or more?
Nobody else can use the house without depriving you of it. Any number
of people can use the computer program without depriving anyone else
of it.
>Copyright is a principle, alien to the more primitive societies because they
>do not understand the concept of collaboration, community etc.
Garbage. Ancient Athens knew more about community and collaboration,
not to mention intellectual creativity, than you will ever know. But
it had no intellectual property monopolies, and would have rightly
considered them outrageous and intolerable.
>One talented person spends his entire life to create something beautiful for
>the world (a pianist for example), does he not deserve to eat?
>If 10,000 people buy his records, the music will be very cheap and he will
>eat.
Non sequitur. Are you perhaps unaware that musicians ate for
thousands of years before there was any such thing as copyright?
>Perhaps you are confused with "Big Business" monopolization of things like
>software patents (a bad concept), medicines, music etc. Those things are so
>expensive not due to the R&D or efforts involved, but only due to the "Free
>Market" (which isn't free at all, especially not in the West becasue in
>Africa, people can buy expensive Coca Cola but in the West, we can't buy
>cheap African fruit juices).
Read the Wikipedia article on economic rent. It might help you
understand some of these things.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<damien....@inria.fr.invalid> wrote:
>In article <456b3b1a...@news.telus.net>, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>> ?? So what? Thieves plan their heists with the understanding that
>> they will get the loot. That doesn't mean it is earned.
>
>Arguing by analogy just doesn't work.
Yes, it does. Analogy is one of the fundamental tools of human
cognition. In this case, the analogy serves to point out that the
original argument was a blatant non sequitur.
>> And are you
>> perhaps unaware that lots of people have created great works, and
>> continue to do so, without intellectual property monopoly privileges?
>
>Of course I know that. The standard argument is that you get
>_more_ great works by creating artificial monopolies, because
>there is more incentive.
Of course that is the argument. It may even be true in some limited
sense (i.e., compared to having no payment to the creators at all).
But the assumption (which is of course never explicitly stated, as it
is so self-evidently false) is that creating artificial monopolies is
the _best_ and only _acceptable_ way to get more great works.
>> Yep. In the case of a lot of rap "artists," that would be a
>> consummation devoutly to be wished.
>
>Who owns the monopoly on rap? Copyright is arguably acceptable
>because it is only a monopoly on one particular work which,
>supposedly in most cases, wouldn't have been created in the
>absence of copyright.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
>If you thing rap artists get too much
>money, go ahead and create some rap. Copyright law doesn't
>prevent you from competing with them.
Yes, actually, it most certainly does.
>> Does it never _bother_ you that
>> these no-talent offenses to music are showered with money, while
>> people who actually work for a living struggle to make ends meet?
>
>I don't judge other people's taste. Some of the artists I love
>are also extremely rich. Does it bother me?
I don't know. But I do know that as amusing as the Harry Potter books
might be, JK Rowling does not deserve to be a billionaire for writing
them when many, many works of equal or greater quality languish
unread, their authors waiting tables and manning call centers. I know
that a mediocre musical talent like Ringo Starr does not deserve to be
one of the richest men in England on the strength of having lucked
into a gig with three first-rate musical talents like Lennon,
McCartney and Harrison for a few years.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<jef...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> Privacy is an entirely different issue, but I am also leery of appeals
>> to privacy, especially as regards the "private" financial dealings of
>> those who have extensive business with government.
>
>Why is it "entirely different"?
The underlying logic of the issue is entirely different.
>Privacy laws take away the rights of
>those who would collect and spread information, which is very similar to
>copyright laws.
Yes, but in the case of privacy violations, the information is being
used as a weapon, to deprive someone of a natural right that has been
recognized since time immemorial.
>However, by your remarks, it seems that you have different ideals for
>governments, corporations, and those seeking profits than for an
>ordinary individual. It's an understandable position, but then your
>extreme analogy with slave-owners works against it in the exact same way.
No. You've misunderstood my position. I would hold corporations and
individuals to the same standard, government to a higher one.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<fr...@moyogo.com> wrote:
><ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
>> Privacy is an entirely different issue, but I am also leery of appeals
>> to privacy, especially as regards the "private" financial dealings of
>> those who have extensive business with government.
>
>Here in Norway, every autumn, the printed and internet newspapers publish,
>for every taxpayer in the country, a list of income received, tax paid and
>money in the bank. With name, surname and city of the person.
>
>The reason: "We want to have openness".
To me that's excessive, though I do support publication of who owns
stocks and real estate, and all substantial transactions involving
government and politicians.
>Your rejection of the right to privacy is very dangerous in good times, and
>in bad times it can lead to holocaust.
I don't reject it, I just think it has to be tempered with the
realization that privacy protections can be used to conceal
wrongdoing.
>The naivity of people like you is astounding an appalling and seen your
>rabid defence of Copyright violation - claiming Copyright is "theft" - (You
>mean PATENTS - fool!)
I mean patents too.
>I can only surmise you're some kind of new-age hippy
>communist brainwashed sod.
<yawn>
>Extreme left wingers like yourself are more dangerous than extreme right
>wingers.
But I'm not an extreme left-winger, except by comparison with extreme
right-wingers.
>Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot killed more than Hitler, the Popes and the
>Bush family.
Godwin's Law. You lose.
-- Roy L
Frank de Groot
> Garbage. Ancient Athens knew more about community and collaboration,
> not to mention intellectual creativity, than you will ever know.
Which implikes that you call Ancient Greece "primitive".
Well, I don't.
I see no difference between their and our society (if anything, theirs was
more advanced)
> Non sequitur. Are you perhaps unaware that musicians ate for
> thousands of years before there was any such thing as copyright?
They could only serve one small audience.
The rest could not hear them.
If the rest wants to hear him, they have to pay him a fraction of his time's
worth.
The more listeners, the cheaper the performance.
> Read the Wikipedia article on economic rent. It might help you
> understand some of these things.
Wikipedia is a CIA disinformation site ;-)
Mef
ro...@telus.net wrote:
> Garbage. Ancient Athens knew more about community and collaboration,
> not to mention intellectual creativity, than you will ever know. But
> it had no intellectual property monopolies, and would have rightly
> considered them outrageous and intolerable.
>
Granted, however in Ancient Athens there was no printing press,
recordning or otherwise means of mass reproduction of an artistic work,
so it's not quite comparing apples to apples. While I do agree with
many of your points regarding copyright, I fail to see how a writer is
able to sustain his or her livelihood if he/she cannot be sure of
seeing profits from the sucessful sale of the work. The only schemes
I can see would be a sort of pre-emptive payment but that would not be
a feasible means for as of yet unheard of writers.
Cheers,
Mef
david Windsor
it may email me for a copy. After all, no one would want Frank to obtain
'unearned rent'.
Dav...@gmail.com
Dav...@gmail.com
my apologies, for both the above, and the reply to the above.
Frank de Groot
Dear Sir, Madam,
I am the author of the software "Moyo Go Studio" (www.moyogo.com), and one
of your customers has offered a free pirated copy to anyone who emails him
(see posting with full headers below) - scroll down for the offending part.
I demand that you terminate this persons' account immediately and notify me
within 24 hours of this email, or I reserve the the right to sue you for
damages. It will certainly be a figure exceeding one million CAD.
If you decide that this posting does not warrant termination of the
offending person's account due to violation of your TOS, and I see this
person's IP address posting ever again in the same newsgroup, or I see this
person posting ever again using you as an ISP, then there will be no further
letters or emails from me but legal steps against you will ensue.
A copy of this email has been sent to you by regular mail.
Best regards,
Frank de Groot
Vettaliveien 19
0781 Oslo
Norway
tel. +47-98680219
fr...@moyogo.com
Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub2.home.nl!home.nl!news2.euro.net!213.132.189.2.MISMATCH!multikabel.net!feed20.multikabel.net!news.glorb.com!out01a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!wesley.videotron.net!wagner.videotron.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: david Windsor <Davo...@yahoo.ca>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Copyright
References: In-Reply-To: <ecCdnQe6ZtJ...@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <Xo3bh.119676$S72.2...@wagner.videotron.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:13:30 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.82.118.79
X-Complaints-To: ab...@videotron.ca
X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 1164755639 70.82.118.79 (Tue, 28 Nov 2006
18:13:59 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:13:59 EST
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.go:121932
Mef
Frank de Groot
news:1164757238.6...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> That's harsh considering he's already apologized
Even harsher:
http://www.moyogo.com/DavidWindsor.png
I have to go to bed now, but tomorrow I'll call his ISP to make sure he gets
disconnected.