somrand0

indeed, the first step (IMO) towards revising the notion is to recognize that physical (material, tangible) assets inherently work differently than digital assets.

As I understand so far the main reason to seek a revision of the concept of ownership is exactly due to the existence (enabled by internet technology) of digital assets.

copy-pasting is HOW computers work. copy-pasting does not do well in society ruled by the exclusivity-mindset inherent to marketplaces (and their societies) of tangible assets

but what about people getting paid for the invested money of movies made by their ancestors, dead over 50 years ago (and up to more than 100 years ago, whatever is the current copyright term for movies)

do they have a right to enjoy being rewarded for work they didn't do but their ancestors did?

if the intention of those laws was to encourage creativity, how come they're stiffing it more than encouraging without any signs of any government trying to correct the laws to better match their purported intentions?

considering that information is something static (which doesn't change) that describes (is about) how something else is changing

I think that indeed, it is the inherent nature of information to radiate itself, i.e. to share (to shine, to spread)

but what does it mean to destroy the concept of ownership (i.e. the notion of property)

if we take that

> The only way to truly own something, is to either share it or destroy it.

could I argue that then, we would be taking ownership of the concept of ownership??

ahahha... I think this is kind of funny. And I'd admit that it's not very helpful to the goal of revising the very concept of ownership.

my own parent comment is already controversial with many replies and exactly 0 points (at the time of this response)

ownership is a concept in dire need of revision

well yea, because your parents were essentially slaves, the property of higher elite classes. I'm pointing to the class relationship, nothing specific to your parents.

I wonder if such practices were used in schools reserved for royalty and other nobles in the UK

depends on how close you wanna get to the servers, and then the hardware?

I suppose it's a super rare occurrence now, but back when I was starting on this, I would mess up my X server and was forced to fix it from the command line.

could you post some hyper-links to said offerings?

I see nothing in that article that says anything about a world view. not in a deep actually useful way. i see shallow fluff.

disagree, the url contextualizes what one's looking at in that other URL.

I wish I could study (and explain) those 19KB of javascript (and including the rest of the locked down software stack taken for granted) as the sheet music that I take them to be from a fully academic music-technological standpoint.

but I don't want a bend over backwards to have to do this. oh well.

I wanna bend over backwards as I do it, from the very hardware (intel x86) all the way to the sound and back down the stack again. going through (or across??) the ADC and DAC cards and all that. I would never finish, so I wouldn't be allowed to start in any typical academic programs.

I think within the academia is the only place this could possibly be brought up.

IMO, tacit collusion is the underlying scheme by which we communicate (transfer meaning between people)

> I was not really conscious throughout most of it.

I disagree. hear me out. I think you were just using a non-linguistic mode of consciousness.

We are far too accustomed to thinking and being (and imagining that we are) made out of words, or things that can be put into words. But I have chosen to believe that this is merely one amongst various others ways to think.

Language is a tool. A human being is not made out of words (from a language). Nonetheless, a lot of what we imagine ourselves to be is made out of words (from a language).

Let's not keep on making the mistake that what we are is something that can be *completely* put into words.

because this is not an analysis of computing in general. but an analysis about a specific use-case of computers in general: video games; written in response to microsoft's gobbling up of activision

but they're both computation, why wouldn't they compatibly compute?

(I just wanted to say "compatibly computing")

> [...]that'd be rapid progress towards modernizing it.

I misread this as "monetizing". almost snorted.

What's so bad about the UI? is it dated because of it's structure? or does it seem dated because of widgets (the style, the way it is drawn?)?

The super powered UI problem is not quite solved, unless you accept microsoft's ribbon interfaces as a solution

clearly I need to learn more about stock ownership; but that would require the opportunity to own stock. And I'm from a secondary/lower socioeconomic-tier from a 3rd tier (third world country). So those opportunities aren't readily available to me.

regardless,

the restrictions on trade of physical goods exists due to matters of ownership over government-level permissions (licenses?) for import/export, taxation, an other such kinds of things. It's ownership over whole countries; that's the ownership at play when considering digital trade restrictions.

counterpoint: open source is fine. what needs to change is economics themselves

because digital assets have a fundamental difference with material ones.

I'm referring to how digital assets can be owned non-exclusively, i.e. we can both have the same data.

In contrast material (or physical) assets are exclusive. Either I have it xOR you do, we cannot both own the same thing.

Stocks (and other sophisticated goods) are interesting because they mean we each own a fraction of something, even when that object cannot actually be easily split. But notice how there's still a sense of exclusivity; the same stock cannot be owned by multiple people at the same time.

what!? do you expect they should walk!? tyrant!!!

lol (sorry for not being funny to you)

you need to pay whomever owns pantone a bunch of money to know that kind of thing

this is now easier than ever through adobe cloud offerings! only 12 usd a month!

under perfect capitalism (using my ill-defined opinion of what capitalism is)

be prepared to pay royalties, or possibly face criminal copyright infringement, for using that line of thinking in the future.

(this comment is supposed to be some sort of "joke". but the yoke is on most of us)

"sufficiently advanced compression/encoding is indistinguishable from encryption"

like QR codes.. they're encrypted, but the secret key is widely available: it's the source code that decodes the graphic

unsung? not anymore. this article is singing for him

that makes no sense to me. clearly something's missing here. could you elaborate?

I understand a plateau to mean that there's no more upwards

nah, I disagree.

I've been trying to express complex ideas at the limits of my own grasp of language (including my native one) since always. And so long as I've kept trying I have kept improving. Surely diction is difficult, but you would have probably needed some diction tutoring or other tips to better use your mouth to sound like a native. It is possible but it's work.

so this is my counter point to your counterpoint.

you're omitting "the" when using capitalized nouns. except when prepending "new"

in a way, I understand that the function of "the" is some kind of emphasis (or something). The answer you seek is not syntactic, but semantic.

I liked the movie... But which one?

I liked Movie-Title. Now there's no doubt which one was it.

My point is that to say "I installed THE python 3" could be understood as a sort of emphasis... I installed THE python 3 could signal (in the appropriate context) that you did not install python 3 from the conda foundation but the one from THE PSF (this is a shoddy example, but this is a random comment on the internet)

I watched Star Wars. I watched THE ('complete', or 'original', or 'new') Star Wars trilogy

ah, so the open code would (will?) vanish the instant it's not cheaper (and-or better) to develop the core engine in this way.

consider people working at an amazon warehouse ..

those companies rely on there existing an entire class of people unable to refuse to get into a job where they may get in trouble for taking too long of a bathroom break; those people are clearly employees.

a less famous example would be people picking apples, or working in a meat packing factory.

where's the consent to exist in a situation that prevents refusing some jobs? jobs without which everything would get way more expensive for the privileged american consumer.

in any case, I don't think I can argue my perspective to you any better than this; we all believe (and notice) whatever we want and makes us feel alright.

it truly is a consequence of privilege that you see work and money as a way to collaborate and work together, because as I understand them, money is a social technology, hence it can be used as it has in your experience, as well as used to exploit and coerce people into crappy scenarios for the sake of the 'consumer's experience'

thanks for the succinct definition.

essentially, more status game plays