Comments on: What the Hell Is Being a Moderator For? Blog, news, books Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: baliku Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:50:25 +0000 Forget the db for serving pages, serialize the entries out into static html using Velocity and be done. Let Apache handle the volume and Roller do the editing. You can even add in an FTP server option like Blogger, and get some of static pages off the site as well. We’re talking a Quartz task to serialize and maybe an evening’s effort or your part for integration.

I think I suggested its truly
, :)Great content to find another.

By: Douglas Galbi Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:41:55 +0000 Airspace is a good example of why arguing about “commons” versus “property rights” is a bad idea. Turns out that there is a well-developed market in airspace rights for buildings. At the same time, planes fly freely within national airspaces, the FAA provides views on airport construction, and judges struggle to find a rational basis for answering the question of what is the sky and where it begins. Generally, the established rule for free (domestic) flight today is 500 feet of altitude, established based on flight characteristics of bi-planes in the late 1920s. For discussion and references, see pp. 26-28 of “A Desperate Case under the Commerce Clause: Federal Jurisdiction over All Radio Use”, available at
Arguing about whether persons should have the right to own air just increases the atmospheric temperature and contributes to global warming.

By: Ben Finney Tue, 24 Jun 2003 01:16:16 +0000 Anonymous (please put your name in the form when you comment) wrote:
> [a friend] thoroughly believed that the �creator� of a work
> should have total and indefinite rights to their intellectual
> creation. I was trying to find a good argument against that
> position. However, �common good� and �social contract�
> appeared to be �socialist� positions to their point of view.

Try reductio ad absurdum.

Ask them for some examples of creative works, ones that they believe the “creator” should own forever. Then demonstrate that those works are actually based, to a great degree, on *existing ideas* that the “creator” had access to. A few ideas the “creator” might have had to license from other copyright holders; but the vast body of ideas that underpin the work are based on public domain works.

Without the public domain, *nobody can create any new work* without paying *every single copyright holder* in the chain, to the beginning of time.

Hope that helps.

By: Tom Morris Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:42:13 +0000 That is considering you don’t get sucked in to the engine and turned in to hamburger meat with a side serving of shredded parachute (even suitable for vegetarians).

By: Karl Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:07:20 +0000 Actually, the sky is a great example of a commons where the average Joe has a leg up on the Commercial big boys. By law, unpowered aircraft always have the right-of-way in the sky, and must be navigated around by other craft. Remember this the next time you’re sky diving (sky divers are classified as unpowered aircraft) and hit a jet. You’ve got a great lawsuit on your hands.

By: Anonymous Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:06:54 +0000 John (or anyone else who would know, for that matter).

I’ve had such a debate with such a friend recently, who thoroughly believed that the “creator” of a work should have total and indefinite rights to their intellectual creation. I was trying to find a good argument against that position. However, “common good” and “social contract” appeared to be “socialist” positions to their point of view.

How would you convince them that the present situation, and it’s direction, is actually pretty anti-american and anti-capitalist? I believe arguments that would show this irrevocably, would be the ones to convince most “non-professionals”.

By: John Goodwin Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:56:45 +0000 Unfortunately, “common sense” runs in the other direction. Most non-professionals I know have a “common sense” intuition that if one creates a work, one should have indefinite complete control over those works. They also tend to believe profitable corporations should have the same rights.

There are two battles here: the legal one and the social one. If you lose the social one, the legal one won’t matter because people will think it is not equitable for Disney to lose Mickey Mouse.

By: Tom Morris Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:54:43 +0000 Why is it okay for the military and large US airlines to use a Commons but ordinary Joe Bloggs isn’t allowed the benefit of a decent Commons in terms of creative and scientific work? Because that’s the US government for you.

Sorry, just an angry Future of Ideas (top marks!) reader babbling…