Can we use DAPs to access remote MDB files?
Lauren Wilson
to link to or otherwise access and manipulate MDB files stored on a
web server (from the client) and others seem to be saying it's NOT
possible.
Assuming the latter is correct, shouldn't it be possible to do it with
a hidden Data Access Page running on the client machine?
I assume it's possible to run a DAP without revealing it to the client
user -- correct?
Thanks all,
-- LW
David W. Fenton
news:7f8m121qf7hsjk92q...@4ax.com:
> OK, I'm confused. SOME folks here seem to be saying it IS
> possible to link to or otherwise access and manipulate MDB files
> stored on a web server (from the client) and others seem to be
> saying it's NOT possible.
With something running on the server intermediate between the MDB
and ADO, yes. Something has to create the XML that Lyle is using.
> Assuming the latter is correct, shouldn't it be possible to do it
> with a hidden Data Access Page running on the client machine?
DAPs are for just a way for delivering data in a browser. This is
not the same as Access MDE->ADO=>MDB on webserver (with "=>"
reprenting an HTTP connection).
> I assume it's possible to run a DAP without revealing it to the
> client user -- correct?
I'm not sure. I do know that DAPs are gone in Access 12.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
Anthony England
news:7f8m121qf7hsjk92q...@4ax.com...
I think people are saying that you can, but it would be of limited practical
use. If it was possible to create a standardised solution of this type
which worked well in practise, then people would be doing it - but they're
not. This tells you something, doesn't it?
Imagine the simplest database you might have in Access, a single table of
contacts with a form which showed your complete list of 500 contacts. This
All-Access solution would take about 2 seconds to design and would work as a
multi-user database pretty well straight out of the box. Compare this to
the web, where I might be able to grab my list via http, build a recordset
and show them on my form. However, 5 minutes later someone has changed
record 302 from 'Peter Smith' to 'Pete Smith' How would I know about this?
Well I wouldn't unless I checked the record against the server version each
time I moved to another record. In fact people could be adding, deleting
and changing all the time and in order for me to be current I have to keep
checking. And while I could do this, it would mean that it no longer
resembled an Access application in the way it worked.
So what if I optimised my Access application for this whereby I typed in an
ID and retrieved the details for that one individual? Well yes that could
work reasonably efficiently, but what is the point building it in Access?
It would be much easier to user something like ASP where the whole
application is worked with a webbrowser. You don't need to worry about
network permissions, firewalls, having Office installed or worry about what
browser they might be using. Provided they have internet access, then they
can work with your database.
However, we have no idea what sort of database you have, how many users,
what latency you could tolerate, any information about what technologies you
have available (ASP, ASP.NET, SQL Server, Access, Terminal Services). Like
Lyle has mentioned before, you could set out your situation in more detail
and ask what sort of solution people would recommend rather than asking
'would it be theoretically possible to run a hidden dap as part of an Access
application'.
Lauren Wilson
Thanks for your response. Here's more info that might help:
We have about 4200 users spread out all over North America and some in
Central & South America. However, each of those users access THEIR
data on local MDBs. The ONLY need for this Client to Web server
interface is to do things like check for new versions AND to control
licensing. So, the program will be internally making ALL the calls to
the server and the user will not know it's happening. Concurrent
users hitting the web DB for license validation and/or update info
should be VERY rare but it WILL happen. Each user's machine will only
check these things about twice per month.
Larry Linson
> Thanks for your response. Here's more info that might help:
>
> We have about 4200 users spread out all over North America and some in
> Central & South America. However, each of those users access THEIR
> data on local MDBs. The ONLY need for this Client to Web server
> interface is to do things like check for new versions AND to control
> licensing. So, the program will be internally making ALL the calls to
> the server and the user will not know it's happening. Concurrent
> users hitting the web DB for license validation and/or update info
> should be VERY rare but it WILL happen. Each user's machine will only
> check these things about twice per month.
Did you read what David said about DAPs? Here's the link to where Clint
Covington, a Program Manager for Access 12 at Microsoft, said it.
http://www.utteraccess.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1057772&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1
I translate that to mean, in simple terms, "using DAP for a new application
at this point in time is not a good idea."
Sounds to me as if you might use WinSock to do the communication if it is
"behind the scenes". I'm no expert, but I do know it is a proven approach
to sending/receiving messages.
Indeed, can you count on all your users to always be connected to the
Internet so your application can "call home"? Can you count on their system
administrators not to have blocked the communication you are trying to do,
as a security measure? I presume you are being upfront and telling them that
the application will "call home" -- so they won't think your app is running
spyware.
Frankly, that is the kind of thing that I consider more hassle than the
average application is worth. If all your users are employees of your
company and have no choice, then you are in good shape. If they have the
choice, they might believe as I do that is Not A Good Idea and seek a
different solution.
Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
Lauren Wilson
Ordinarily, I would agree. In our situation, our users are paying a
monthly service fee to maintain their license. They all agreed to
that up front -- and, so far, all are glad to pay it. I cannot think
of another way to enforce payment, than to do it like your cell phone
provider does -- if you stop paying, the program (phone) stops
working. The program will have a built-in grace period to account for
temporary network outages, but over time, they must periodically "call
home" as you put it, to maintain their license. In our case, the
procedure verifies current payment and returns True. False, of
course, will disable the license. Getting something for "nothing" is
not the way to run a human society.
I predict that we will soon see the day when ALL software of any
serious business significance will require such licensing -- even the
kind you pay for only once. Microsoft is already doing this on a
limited scale by blocking updates to unlicensed software. From that
point, it's a very small step to blocking the license itself. Given
the fact that most of the Chinese and Russian economies are operating
on stolen software, that day cannot come a moment too soon. It's a
simple matter of personal and collective virtue -- if you agree to
something, you damn well better honor your word. The American legal
system will NEVER adequately enforce property rights -- for reasons
that should be obvious to any diligent student of human history.
Lyle Fairfield
the American legal system will NEVER adequately enforce property
rights. The only thing I can think of is that if it did the various
south-western states and their residents and land holders would have to
return millions of acres to the Mexicans from whom the land was stolen.
Is that it?
Anthony England
>
> Thanks for your response. Here's more info that might help:
>
> We have about 4200 users spread out all over North America and some in
> Central & South America. However, each of those users access THEIR
> data on local MDBs. The ONLY need for this Client to Web server
> interface is to do things like check for new versions AND to control
> licensing. So, the program will be internally making ALL the calls to
> the server and the user will not know it's happening. Concurrent
> users hitting the web DB for license validation and/or update info
> should be VERY rare but it WILL happen. Each user's machine will only
> check these things about twice per month.
Having just been woken up by my 16 month old daughter at 4:15, and finding
myself unable to get back to sleep I decided to write a demo. This form
simply requires a textbox 'txtQuestion' and a command button 'cmdAnswer'.
You type in a question, press the button and it magically gets the answer
across the internet. The questions can be of the format:
What is the capital of Greece?
What is the population of Poland?
When you create the form you will need to set a reference to "Microsoft
Internet Controls"
Please do try this out, as I took the bother to write it for you, but please
also note that the database it queries is not mine, nor do I know the
authors. This means that they may change the format at any time and also
may get fed up if millions of Access databases across the world start
hitting it with requests.
' *** Code Starts ***
Option Compare Database
Option Explicit
Private Enum QuestionTypeEnum
UnknownQuestion
CapitalQuestion
PopulationQuestion
End Enum
Dim WithEvents ixp As InternetExplorer
Dim m_lngSeconds As Long
Dim m_lngTimeout As Long
Dim m_QuestionType As QuestionTypeEnum
'
Private Sub cmdAnswer_Click()
On Error GoTo Err_Handler
Dim strQuestion As String
Dim strURL As String
strQuestion = Trim(Nz(Me.txtQuestion, ""))
If strQuestion Like "What is the capital of *" Then
strURL = Mid$(strQuestion, 24)
If Right$(strURL, 1) = "?" Then
strURL = Left$(strURL, Len(strURL) - 1)
End If
strURL = "www.worldessentials.com/capital.asp" & _
"?country=" & strURL
m_QuestionType = QuestionTypeEnum.CapitalQuestion
ElseIf strQuestion Like "What is the population of *" Then
strURL = Mid$(strQuestion, 27)
If Right$(strURL, 1) = "?" Then
strURL = Left$(strURL, Len(strURL) - 1)
End If
strURL = "www.worldessentials.com/population.asp" & _
"?country=" & strURL
m_QuestionType = QuestionTypeEnum.PopulationQuestion
Else
strQuestion = "Enter a question such as:" & vbCrLf & _
"What is the capital of France? or" & vbCrLf & _
"What is the population of Italy?"
MsgBox strQuestion, vbInformation
Me.txtQuestion.SetFocus
Exit Sub
End If
DoCmd.Hourglass True
ixp.Navigate2 strURL
m_lngTimeout = 10
m_lngSeconds = 0
Me.TimerInterval = 1000
Exit_Handler:
Exit Sub
Err_Handler:
DoCmd.Hourglass False
MsgBox Err.Description, vbExclamation, "Error No: " & Err.Number
Resume Exit_Handler
End Sub
Private Sub Form_Open(Cancel As Integer)
On Error GoTo Err_Handler
Cancel = True
Set ixp = New InternetExplorer
Cancel = False
Exit_Handler:
Exit Sub
Err_Handler:
MsgBox Err.Description, vbExclamation, "Error No: " & Err.Number
Resume Exit_Handler
End Sub
Private Sub Form_Timer()
On Error GoTo Err_Handler
m_lngSeconds = m_lngSeconds + 1
If m_lngSeconds >= m_lngTimeout Then
Me.TimerInterval = 0
ixp.Navigate2 "about:blank"
End If
Exit_Handler:
Exit Sub
Err_Handler:
MsgBox Err.Description, vbExclamation, "Error No: " & Err.Number
Resume Exit_Handler
End Sub
Private Sub Form_Unload(Cancel As Integer)
On Error GoTo Err_Handler
If Not ixp Is Nothing Then
Set ixp = Nothing
End If
Exit_Handler:
Exit Sub
Err_Handler:
MsgBox Err.Description, vbExclamation, "Error No: " & Err.Number
Resume Exit_Handler
End Sub
Private Sub ixp_DocumentComplete(ByVal pDisp As Object, URL As Variant)
On Error GoTo Err_Handler
Dim strHtml As String
Dim lngPos1 As Long
Dim lngPos2 As Long
Dim strValue As String
If pDisp Is ixp Then
DoCmd.Hourglass False
Me.TimerInterval = 0
If ixp.LocationURL = "about:blank" Then
MsgBox "Timeout Occurred!", vbExclamation
Else
strHtml = ixp.Document.Body.innerHTML
Select Case m_QuestionType
Case QuestionTypeEnum.CapitalQuestion
lngPos1 = InStr(1, strHtml, ">The Capital of ")
Case QuestionTypeEnum.PopulationQuestion
lngPos1 = InStr(1, strHtml, ">The Population of ")
End Select
If lngPos1 > 0 Then
lngPos1 = InStr(lngPos1, strHtml, "<P>")
If lngPos1 > 0 Then
lngPos1 = lngPos1 + 3
lngPos2 = InStr(lngPos1, strHtml, "</P>")
If lngPos2 > lngPos1 Then
strValue = Trim(Mid$(strHtml, lngPos1, lngPos2 -
lngPos1))
End If
End If
End If
End If
If Len(strValue) > 0 Then
strValue = "Q: " & Me.txtQuestion & vbCrLf & _
"A: " & strValue
MsgBox strValue, vbInformation, "Answer"
Else
strValue = "Q: " & Me.txtQuestion & vbCrLf & _
"A: Sorry, I don't know!"
MsgBox strValue, vbExclamation, "Unanswered Question"
End If
End If
Exit_Handler:
Exit Sub
Err_Handler:
MsgBox Err.Description, vbExclamation, "Error No: " & Err.Number
Resume Exit_Handler
End Sub
' *** Code Ends ***
Lauren Wilson
much. I have only glanced at the code so far but I will study it for
ideas on adaptation to our needs.
You are a fine fellow.
-- LW
Anthony England
> Oh Anthony! This is such a kind effort on your part. Thanks very
> much. I have only glanced at the code so far but I will study it for
> ideas on adaptation to our needs.
>
> You are a fine fellow.
>
> -- LW
You're welcome!
But note it only takes a minute to have it working as it is:
1 form, 1 textbox, 1 button.
Cut & paste the code and set the reference.
Larry Linson
> I predict that we will soon see the day when
> ALL software of any serious business signifi-
> cance will require such licensing -- even the
> kind you pay for only once. Microsoft is
> already doing this on a limited scale by
> blocking updates to unlicensed software.
> From that point, it's a very small step to
> blocking the license itself. Given the fact that
> most of the Chinese and Russian economies
> are operating on stolen software, that day
> cannot come a moment too soon. It's a
> simple matter of personal and collective
> virtue -- if you agree to something, you
> damn well better honor your word. The
> American legal system will NEVER adequately
> enforce property rights -- for reasons that
> should be obvious to any diligent student
> of human history.
Ooeeee! I didn't intend to set you off so you'd climb up on your soapbox. I
was talking about personal preference of the user. I know there are
movements by major software producers in the direction you describe.
There are also movements among the great unwashed, the hoi polloi, and a few
pretty decent-sized companies (like IBM and Sun Microsystems, to name just
two) to Open Source, completely the opposite of "strict license
enforcement".
I'm not sure why the American legal system won't adequately enforce property
rights, so I guess I must not be a sufficiently diligent student of human
history. In fact, in regards to software patents, I think the American legal
system has often gone 'way too far in granting and enforcing them.
If Lyle lived in the American Southwest, or was a sufficiently diligent
student of human history, he'd know there's a pretty good balance between
what he describes and oppressed people freeing themselves from a
dictatorship. And, that the oppressed people in that dictatorship kept
revolting to free themselves until they succeeded (at least for a while,
ĄViva Zapata!).
Larry
Lauren Wilson
Sounds like you're not certain that intellectual property is the basis
of ALL Rights -- for EVERYONE. Too bad. Hopefully, someday, you'll
discover how vital it is to human happiness and prosperity.
Unfortunately, this is not the venue for such discussion. Sorry I
dragged you into it. I won't comment further here except to say that
if we (humanity) knew for sure who originally invented the wheel, all
of humanity would justly own the inventor's progeny royalties for
using wheels.
"Property is the individual man's life and all non-procreative
derivatives of his life. 'Property' is the supreme subject of
volition, just as 'energy' is the supreme subject of physics."
--A. J. Galambos
Larry Linson
Well, too bad -- I'm here now.
> Sounds like you're not certain that intellectual
> property is the basis of ALL Rights -- for
> EVERYONE. Too bad.
I guess you're right -- that's not one of the basic premises on which I
construct my belief system. Do you think the fact that I give away, for
free, most all of what I "invent" about doing things with Access amounts to
a Major Human Rights Violation?
> Hopefully, someday, you'll discover how vital
> it is to human happiness and prosperity.
Ideas, thought, and free expression are, indeed, vital. Enrichment from, as
opposed to fair return on, intellectual property, enforced by the armed
power of the government, does not seem all that vital to me.
> Unfortunately, this is not the venue for such
> discussion. Sorry I dragged you into it. I
> won't comment further here except to say that
> if we (humanity) knew for sure who originally
> invented the wheel, all of humanity would
> justly own the inventor's progeny royalties for
> using wheels.
An eternal term for patent protection? You better cogitate on what you just
said -- there are excellent reasons for a relatively short term for patent
protection. I am convinced that the recent revisions to the Copyright laws
and, most especially, the onerous Digital Millenium Copyright Act are
outrageous, and will be a deterrent to progress. The DMCA, however, does a
marvelous job of protecting the interest of publishers of
entertainment-ware. And, oh, my goodness, do we ever need _those_ interests
protected...
Larry
Lauren Wilson
<bou...@localhost.not> wrote:
>"Lauren Wilson" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>Well, too bad -- I'm here now.
>
> > Sounds like you're not certain that intellectual
> > property is the basis of ALL Rights -- for
> > EVERYONE. Too bad.
>
>I guess you're right -- that's not one of the basic premises on which I
>construct my belief system. Do you think the fact that I give away, for
>free, most all of what I "invent" about doing things with Access amounts to
>a Major Human Rights Violation?
No -- as long as you do it for your own reasons, based on your own
values. If you created it, you certainly have a Right to give it away
-- OR charge for it. Clearly, giving it away plays some role in your
hierarchy of values.
> > Hopefully, someday, you'll discover how vital
> > it is to human happiness and prosperity.
>
>Ideas, thought, and free expression are, indeed, vital. Enrichment from, as
>opposed to fair return on, intellectual property, enforced by the armed
>power of the government, does not seem all that vital to me.
If government does not enforce it then the individual will use
whatever means is available to enforce it (anarchy), OR he will simply
stop innovating. Enlightened self-interest (not selfishness and
greed) is LITERALLY THE source of ALL human accomplishments. Removing
the possibility of GREAT reward for innovation would bring most of the
human economic engine to a screeching halt.
> > Unfortunately, this is not the venue for such
> > discussion. Sorry I dragged you into it. I
> > won't comment further here except to say that
> > if we (humanity) knew for sure who originally
> > invented the wheel, all of humanity would
> > justly own the inventor's progeny royalties for
> > using wheels.
>
>An eternal term for patent protection? You better cogitate on what you just
>said -- there are excellent reasons for a relatively short term for patent
>protection.
And they are?
>I am convinced that the recent revisions to the Copyright laws
>and, most especially, the onerous Digital Millenium Copyright Act are
>outrageous, and will be a deterrent to progress. The DMCA, however, does a
>marvelous job of protecting the interest of publishers of
>entertainment-ware. And, oh, my goodness, do we ever need _those_ interests
>protected...
Oh don't get me started.
It's all about politics. NONE of the players in that venue are
seriously thinking about the long-term, morally compelling reasons for
protecting property Rights. they only care about the large groups
(like the entertainment moguls) who can buy the best government money
can buy. This is the consequence of allowing government so much power
that the most effective means of self defense is paying off the
parasites in the political class -- regardless of party.
"You will know your society is doomed when Men who wish to create
wealth must first get permission from Men who create nothing."
-- Author irrelevant.
Lyle Fairfield
our planet. We cannot own these resources, either collectively or
individually. They are the planet's resources, the universe's
resources, God's resources. They are not ours, and they are not the
property of any person or group of persons, nor of any species.
We all, the Humans who wish to create wealth, the Humans who create
nothing, and the Humans who are used and abused by the Humans who
create wealth, depend upon these resources for everything in our life
and we all have both a right and responsibility to protect them, to
cherish them, to defend them, to insist that they be used wisely and
that they be preserved.
David W. Fenton
> Enlightened self-interest (not selfishness and
> greed) is LITERALLY THE source of ALL human accomplishments.
I find any absolute statement to be suspect.
Take out the "ALL" and substitute "many" and I'd agree.
But there are some accomplishments that are entirely the result of
selflessness, or concern for others.
David W. Fenton
> "You will know your society is doomed when Men who wish to create
> wealth must first get permission from Men who create nothing."
> -- Author irrelevant.
Did you intend this quotation, with no identified author, to
completely refute everything you've been saying about intellectual
property rights?
That is, isn't the most basic right the right to have your work
identified as your own? By saying the author is irrelevant, you're
saying that right doesn't exist.
I think you're *very* mixed up in your thinking on these issues.
You have every right to protect your product. That doesn't mean
there's actually any practical way to do it that won't cost you more
in the long run than not bothering in the first place.
Lauren Wilson
<lylefa...@aim.com> wrote:
>One cannot create wealth from nothing.
I believe this is not AS true as it appears on the surface. Yes SOME
earthly resources are required. However, the software industry alone
has demonstrated how much wealth is created from the human mind. Cave
men had vast resources available to them but they were not yet smart
enough to make use of them. Nevertheless, they too created wealth --
as a result of their bodily energy (from food) and their imagination.
>One must use the resources of >our planet. We cannot own these resources, either collectively or individually.
Why not?
>They are the planet's resources, the universe's resources, God's resources. They are not ours, and they are not the property of any person or group of persons, nor of any species.
Why?
>We all, the Humans who wish to create wealth, the Humans who create
>nothing, and the Humans who are used and abused by the Humans who
>create wealth,
... for agreed payment ...
>depend upon these resources for everything in our life
>and we all have both a right and responsibility to protect them, to
>cherish them, to defend them, to insist that they be used wisely and
>that they be preserved.
Agreed. There is nothing to be gained by squandering resources.
Lauren Wilson
<XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>Lauren Wilson <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:h6dq12dp94auv8ngt...@4ax.com:
>
>> Enlightened self-interest (not selfishness and
>> greed) is LITERALLY THE source of ALL human accomplishments.
>
>I find any absolute statement to be suspect.
>
>Take out the "ALL" and substitute "many" and I'd agree.
Normally, I would agree. In this case, please suggest an example that
would effectively discredit the use of "ALL". IOW, name a human
accomplishment, large or small, that was NOT motivated PRIMARILY by
self-interest. Then tell me if we can safely continue this
conversation in this group without violating the group rules.
>But there are some accomplishments that are entirely the result of
>selflessness, or concern for others.
Correct. Assuming they are not acting at gunpoint (or threat of it),
people who do such wonderful things, do so because they are acting on
THEIR personal value system. IOW -- it pleases THEM to do those
things. Mother Theresa is a perfect example. She even admitted that
she lived the life she consciously chose, even though she was born to
wealth and privilege.
Lauren Wilson
<XXXu...@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote:
>Lauren Wilson <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:h6dq12dp94auv8ngt...@4ax.com:
>
>> "You will know your society is doomed when Men who wish to create
>> wealth must first get permission from Men who create nothing."
>> -- Author irrelevant.
>
>Did you intend this quotation, with no identified author, to
>completely refute everything you've been saying about intellectual
>property rights?
>
>That is, isn't the most basic right the right to have your work
>identified as your own? By saying the author is irrelevant, you're
>saying that right doesn't exist.
No. I just don't want the author to be an issue in the discussion. If
you must know, I'll gladly tell you. I believe the author is one of
the most brilliant minds of the last two centuries. That person is
ALSO very controversial.
>I think you're *very* mixed up in your thinking on these issues.
Assuming you know the totality of my thoughts on these issues, exactly
how am I "mixed up"?
>You have every right to protect your product. That doesn't mean
>there's actually any practical way to do it that won't cost you more
>in the long run than not bothering in the first place.
Precisely -- and innovation stops -- or at best, slows to such a
reduced pace that we enter a new dark ages -- like the 1200 years or
so of virtually NO progress that we experienced in the years between
300 AD and 1500 AD.
I do NOT want to live in a world where human contrived limitations
stand in the way of me or my progeny (or any other harmless person)
having the opportunity to become a TRILLIONAIRE as a result of
pleasing their fellow man with products or services that people simply
DECIDE they cannot do without.
Larry Linson
If not, then a disciple?
Larry
"Lauren Wilson" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5hmr12hql772cqjbd...@4ax.com...
'69 Camaro
> Getting something for "nothing" is
> not the way to run a human society.
I'm so glad you agree that the expert advice and code you've asked for and
received should be duly compensated. I'm sure checks are on their way to
Lyle, Anthony, and many others who have contributed code to your Access
applications or who have given you expert guidance on how to accomplish your
computer-related tasks, since you wouldn't want to be accused of getting
something for nothing, like the software pirates you despise.
> I predict that we will soon see the day when ALL software of any
> serious business significance will require such licensing -- even the
> kind you pay for only once.
Don't hold your breath. The number of programmers with the skills, time,
and means to build software of serious business significance and who believe
in open source software, or who live in countries where the legal concept of
intellectual property either doesn't exist or isn't enforced, is quite high.
And those numbers are growing -- significantly. When given a choice, most
computer users will opt for the software applications without the licensing
and activation hassles, so there is and will remain a significant market for
companies that provide business software for customers who reject your
licensing model -- and your assumption that customers would all be software
pirates if given the opportunity.
> The American legal
> system will NEVER adequately enforce property rights
The interpretation of what "adequate enforcement of property rights" is gets
in the way. From some legal circles, the viewpoint is that the enforcement
of property rights is too heavy-handed, while other legal circles view the
handling of property rights as not going far enough. One's viewpoint often
depends upon whether one owns the property in question or whether one wants
to use that property. The legal arguments will keep attorneys in American
courtrooms -- and their pockets full -- for decades to come.
> for reasons
> that should be obvious to any diligent student of human history.
Many of us are students of human history, with all its examples of human
agression, viciousness, courage, humor, and achievements, but from the ideas
you espouse, it appears that you've been reading different books and talked
to different people who lived those histories than we have. Please
enlighten us on the books, authors or people who detailed your version of
history.
HTH.
Gunny
See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.
"Lauren Wilson" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fg2n121h0feon765b...@4ax.com...
'69 Camaro
> Sounds like you're not certain that intellectual property is the basis
> of ALL Rights -- for EVERYONE.
I forget . . . exactly which item of intellectual property is the basis for
our right to freely exercise our religious beliefs? And if we all truly
have this right, why would I be arrested for merely possessing the Holy
Bible or reading aloud from it in public in some countries?
And which item of intellectual property is the basis for our right to keep
and bear arms? And if we all truly have this right, why can't all citizens
in European countries legally own a handgun or a hunting rifle just like
mine?
And who actually owns these particular intellectual properties? Please
don't tell me it's Darl McBride, SCO's CEO. Even if he doesn't already own
any of these intellectual properties, I can just picture him drooling in the
audience at an auction, ready to bid on any of these intellectual properties
on the auction block so he can claim we all have to pay SCO to license all
rights, lefts, and wrong turns, too. <shudder!>
The "basis of ALL Rights -- for EVERYONE"? I'm absolutely certain that
intellectual property is _NOT_ the basis of _all_rights_ for _everyone_.
Despite your U.S.-centric notions, not everyone has the same legal rights
you enjoy under the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.
Citizens in many nations, including the U.S., have had legal rights since
long before intellectual property rights laws were first enacted, so it's
hard to argue that a later legal concept begat the earlier laws.
Intellectual property rights is a fairly modern concept, and it's not that
widely accepted yet. It's not even a legal concept that's actually enforced
where much of the world's population resides.
> Hopefully, someday, you'll
> discover how vital it is to human happiness and prosperity.
Pardon, but your arrogance and condescending tone are showing. So you're
saying that someday when Larry grows up, he'll discover the wisdom you
already have under your bonnet (earned in less than half as many years as
he's walked the Earth, no doubt), and he'll exclaim, "King me!"? What a day
to look forward to!
> I won't comment further here except to say that
> if we (humanity) knew for sure who originally invented the wheel, all
> of humanity would justly own the inventor's progeny royalties for
> using wheels.
What an absurd notion. I suppose we'll just add your name to the list then.
Let's see . . . of the 6.3 billion people on the planet, Lauren Wilson is
the first person to sign up to willingly pay royalties to the wheel
inventor's descendants. Congratulations.
Thus far the rest of the population has declined to be placed on this list,
but don't be surprised if some of them show up at your door claiming to be
descendants of the great inventor, Nechidmon, of Mesopotamia. (Better hope
Ghengis Khan wasn't one of his descendents, as he's got quite a progeny in
the modern era himself.)
"Property is theft. Nobody 'owns' anything. When you die, it all stays
here." -- George Carlin
HTH.
Gunny
See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.
"Lauren Wilson" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ttlp12t1n9uia7t7u...@4ax.com...
David W. Fenton
If you're going to redefine "self-interest" to include every
motivation under the sun, there's no point in discussing the matter
further.
Tim Marshall
>> They are the planet's resources, the universe's resources, God's
>> resources. They are not ours, and they are not the property of any
>> person or group of persons, nor of any species.
>
> Why?
The question is why must everything be owned? I may be misinterpreting
you, but what I seem to be reading in these posts is a horrifically
outdated colonialistic attitude from you.
You seem to imply that every blade of grass should be branded as some
(probably comfortably city dwelling) human's property and sound in other
posts on this that if you could limit our air intake you'd be able to
licence it to those of us who weren't clever enough to do it.
There's a lot of people dying and being mangled because of organizations
from rich countries or assorted governments doing just this sort of
thing. Do you have direct experience with this sort of consequence of
your philosophy? I wouldn't think you have, given your zealousness. I
have, however and thank god everyday the world view you seem to have is
not shared by all.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "What's UP, Dittoooooo?" - Ditto