From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 13:47:27 MST
Hello Samantha.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
> I did not make a simplistic association. I do not speak a vague
> generality.
Sure you did.
You said:
"If you are interested in it being more powerful then you are interested in
it being more open/free."
This is the most basic, general, simplistic and direct of associations. You
have not indicated the presence of other factors. You say: want more power?
make more free. I call that a simplistic association.
> I am speaking of information and only of information, not
> of money. Please keep on topic.
That IS the topic and you should be aware by now that I do not share your
(rather small) definition of what information is. As I've repeatedly
indicated, most everything will be information-- if you disagree, for
instance, that good nanotech will turn material goods into software then you
should make an argument.
Why don't you think that money is information?
> Irrelevant because there is one and only one of those actual physical
> items. I am not speaking of actual physical items but of information,
> of bits. That is the difference as I pointed out in my previous post.
> Dragging an actual physical item in to make your point is a mistake.
Only if you are able to indicate why we shouldn't apply the same rules to
information in this context. My introduction of physical items is very
deliberate-- if we desire to arbitrarily protect the asset of
'collectibility' of a physical item, what are the reasons we shouldn't
desire to do the same for information?
> This does not work. A duplicate is a duplicate and in the world of
> collectibles can never be worth what the original is.
It is relevant that the collectible is a duplicate only if I am able to
detect that that is so. The object in question is worth what a buyer will
pay for it-- for collectibles, buyers pay for perceived authenticity.
Forgery is the process by which we attempt to replicate 'authenticity' and
it is currently illegal to practice this art because we wish to protect this
attribute (particularly with regard to money.)
> We are speaking at cross purposes. I suggest we both take a breather
> and reset.
I'd be pleased to take a breather, if only to forestall a massive debate on
a topic that has historically consumed a massive amount of my free time.
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:12 MST