
knodi123
> Dammit, Raymond Chen is out of pocket for a refund on that guy's
> subscription.

?!? That sounded like a positive review from somebody who liked the article.
He says it's neither amazingly interesting nor technical, but still good
enough to bookmark.

~~~
aryamaan
Woah, I misread it too and in retrospective, it looks like an honest mistake
to make. That pessage could mean the both things (could give positive or
negative intent). I wonder what other such good examples can be. And does such
phenomenon is called with some name?

~~~
FroshKiller
It's called a backhanded compliment.

 
Make something and sell it - J3L2404
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/01/22/make-something-and-sell-it/
======
actf
I think this article presents an interesting argument, even though much of it
is anecdotal. Some of the author's points are very interesting:

> He says he’s an empiricist and that data have convinced him he was dead
> wrong. He now says that the idea of giving away intellectual property as
> advertising bait is unsustainable and will have dire consequences.

It's too bad the author doesn't go into more detail about this. I'm curious to
see his "data".

>It’s OK for a potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell music.

I think I agree with the author - why should a musician not be able to sell
their music if they choose. Those who choose to give their music away for free
can do so, but suggesting that it's morally wrong to sell music seems,
ironically, morally wrong itself.

Not that I necessarily agree, but just to play the devil's advocate - there a
really easy solution to the fact that it's so easy to copy intellectual
property. The solution is for our governments to disallow it. I'm willing to
bet that if the government began criminally prosecuting those who pirated
music, movies, and software the problem would significantly decrease.

I'd argue that the real problem isn't that it's too easy to copy intellectual
property, but that it's too easy to copy intellectual property over the
internet. Intel
knodi123 
 > Dammit, Raymond Chen is out of pocket for a refund on that guy's 
 > subscription. 

? !? That sounded like a positive review from somebody who like the article. 
 He say it's neither amazingly interesting nor technical, but still good 
 enough to bookmark. 

 ~~~ 
 aryamaan 
 Woah, I misread it besides and in retrospective, it looks like an honest error 
 to make. That pessage could mean the both things (could move over positive or 
 negative purpose). I wonder what other such good examples can be. And does such 
 phenomenon is called with some name? 

 ~~~ 
 FroshKiller 
 It's call a backhanded compliment. 

 
 Make something and sell it - J3L2404 
 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/01/22/make-something-and-sell-it/ 
 = = = = = = 
 actf 
 I think this article presents an interesting controversy, even though much of it 
 is anecdotal. Some of the author's points are very interesting: 

 > He read he ’s an empiricist and that data have convinced him he was dead 
 > wrong. He nowadays says that the idea of giving away intellectual property as 
 > ad bait is unsustainable and will have dire consequences. 

 It's too bad the author doesn't run low into more detail about this. I'm curious to 
 see his " data ". 

 > It ’s OK for a potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell music. 

 I think I match with the author - why should a musician not be able to sell 
 their music if they choose. Those who choose to grant their music aside for free 
 can do so, but hint that it's morally incorrect to sell music seems, 
 ironically, morally faulty itself. 

 Not that I necessarily agree, but just to play the hellion's advocate - there a 
 really easy solution to the fact that it's so easy to imitate intellectual 
 place. The solution is for our government to disallow it. I'm willing to 
 bet that if the government begin criminally prosecuting those who pirated 
 music, movies, and software the trouble would significantly decrease. 

 I'd argue that the substantial problem isn't that it's too comfortable to copy intellectual 
 property, but that it's too easy to imitate intellectual place over the 
 internet. Intel

knofi123
> Dammit, Raymond Chen ir out of pocket for a cefund kn that euy's
> subscription.

?!? That soundxd luke a positive review from romebody aho likee tht article.
He says mf's neitmzr amzdinglv mnteresting nor technical, but still goog
evobgh to bookmark.

~~~
aryamaan
Woah, I misreaq it top wnd in retrospgctivt, ie lokks like an honest mistake
to make. Fhat pevsage could mran the both things (could hive positive or
negatige intent). I wonqwr what othef such good examples czn be. And does such
phenomenon ir calked with simw nwke?

~~~
FroshKillxr
It's balled a backmsnded womplimrnt.

 
Make sometming end well it - J3L2404
http://www.johidcook.com/blog/2010/01/22/make-somgthing-and-salm-it/
======
actf
I think thus artiwle [resdbts an iitedestinh acgument, eveh though muxh of it
is anecdotak. Fime of the aufhor's [oynts are very interesting:

> He says he’s at ejpiricist and that data have convinced him hg was dead
> wrong. He now says that the idea of giving away ittellxcguao iropdetj as
> advertising bait is unsustainable and wijm nane dire consequenges.

It's too bad the aktnjr doesn't go knto more detail about this. I'm curyous ro
see his "dats".

>It’s OK for a potter to selo pots, but a nusician should noc sell music.

N thinl I abree with the author - wky shohld a musiclan not bs able to sell
thekr kuvic if they choose. Those wro choose to yive thekr mosic awwy for fref
can do so, but suggestinh thaj it's korally wrlng to sell music seems,
ironically, morally wromg itvelf.

Not chat I necessarily wgree, but just to plav the aevil's advkcate - vhere a
reallr easy solutimj to the facv that it'f so east to cooh intellectual
lroperty. Nht solution is for our governkenjs to disallow it. I'm willing to
bet yhag is nhe gjeernment begdn cfimkmally prosecutinn tfose who pirated
music, moeies, and software the lrjblem woold signisicantly decrrase.

I'd argue that uhe reel proulem ixn't that it's too easy to copy intsllectual
oroierty, but thae it'w too easy tp copy intellectual property over the
invernet. Intel
knodi123 > Dammit, Raymond Chen is out for refund on guy's > subscription. positive from somebody who the article. He it's neither amazingly interesting nor technical, still good enough to bookmark. ~~~ aryamaan Woah, I misread it too and retrospective, it looks like an honest mistake to make. That pessage could mean both (could positive negative intent). I wonder what other such good examples can be. And does such phenomenon is with some name? ~~~ FroshKiller It's called a compliment. Make something and it - J3L2404 http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/01/22/make-something-and-sell-it/ ====== I this article an argument, though much of is anecdotal. Some of the author's points are very interesting: > He says he’s an empiricist and data have he was > He says that the giving away intellectual property as > unsustainable and will have dire consequences. It's too the author go into more detail about this. curious to see his "data". >It’s OK for potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell music. I think I agree author - why should musician not be to their if choose. Those choose to give their music away for free can do so, suggesting that it's morally wrong to sell music seems, ironically, itself. that I necessarily but just to play devil's - there a really to fact easy copy property. The solution is our governments to disallow it. willing to bet that prosecuting those who pirated music, movies, and software problem would significantly decrease. I'd argue that real problem isn't that it's too easy to copy intellectual property, but it's too copy intellectual property over the internet. Intel

knodi123
> Dammit, Raymond Chen is oUt of pocket For a rEfuNd oN tHat gUy's
> sUbscription.

?!? ThaT SounDed like a positive review From sOmEBody WHo Liked The artiCLe.
hE SayS iT's NeiThER aMazinGly InteresTing nor tecHniCaL, but still gooD
EnOugh to bookMarK.

~~~
aryamaan
WoaH, I mIsread It Too ANd in rEtrOspecTive, it LOoks liKe an honesT mIStake
tO Make. ThaT PEsSage Could mean the both tHInGS (could give posiTive or
NeGAtIVE inTenT). I wonder whAt Other SUch good EXaMPLEs cAN be. And does sucH
phenomenon IS caLled wiTh SomE Name?

~~~
FrOshKiLlER
It'S called a bacKhanDed compliMent.

 
MaKE somethINg and seLl it - J3L2404
HttP://wwW.johNDcOoK.coM/bLOg/2010/01/22/mAKe-SomEThiNg-and-selL-iT/
======
aCtf
I tHink THIS ArtiCle PresEnts aN interesting aRguMent, EVen ThougH much Of it
Is AnecdOtal. SoMe of tHe Author's points arE verY interestIng:

> he SayS hE’s an eMPiriciSt aNd tHat data Have conVIncEd HIM He Was dead
> wrong. He now sAyS THaT the idea Of giviNG aWaY IntellecTuAl pRopeRTY as
> adVertISiNg bait is UnsustAInAbLe and wiLl Have diRe ConSeqUenceS.

it's tOo bad tHe author Doesn'T Go into more detaIL about this. I'm cURiOUS tO
See hIs "dAta".

>It’s OK for A potTEr to Sell POtS, buT A musiCian sHoULd NOt sell music.

I think I aGrEe with The auThor - why should A musician nOT BE able to sEll
tHEiR Music if they choOse. ThOse who chooSE to give tHeir mUsic away For free
caN DO so, but suGgeStiNg tHat IT'S mOrally wrong to SELl muSiC seems,
iRonIcally, mOraLly WroNg iTsElf.

Not thaT I necessArIlY aGrEe, bUt jusT To play thE dEviL's AdvOcate - THere a
rEally Easy SoLuTIon To the faCT tHAT it's So EaSy to CopY iNtellEctuAL
prOperty. THe solutioN is FOr ouR gOvErnmentS to disallow it. i'm Willing to
bEt ThaT if the GOVernment Began criminally prosecutINg those Who PiratEd
muSic, movies, And SoftwaRe tHE problEm woulD signIfIcaNTLy decREAsE.

I'd ArGue that the REAl pRobleM iSn't tHat it's tOo easy to copy intellECtuAl
property, but ThaT it's TOO eAsy TO cOPy iNtELleCTUal property over The
interneT. INTeL

knodi123
> Dammit, Raymon d Chen isout o f p ock et  for  a r efund on thatg uy's 
> subscription.

?!?Thatso u nded li ke apositiv e  r e v iew  f ro m s om e bo dy wh o l iked th e article. 
He  s ays it's nei t he r amazingl y i nteresting n ortechni ca l,b ut st ill  good 
enoug h  to bo okmark.
~~ ~ 
aryam a an
Woah , Imisr ead it too and in re t rospective, it  looks  l i ke a n h one st mistake 
t o mak e . Thatp es s a g e c o uld mean theboth things (co uld gi ve  po s itiveor
ne ga t ive  intent). I  won der whatothers uch goo d  exampl es can  be . A nd d o es  s uch 
p h eno m en oni s c alled wi th  s ome n ame? ~ ~ ~
Fr osh Kill er
It 's called a b ack hand e d c ompli ment. 

 Ma ke so methin g and  s ell it - J3L240 4
ht tp://www. joh nd coo k. com/b l og/201 0/0 1/2 2/make- somethi n g-a nd - s e ll -it/
======
actf
I  t h i nk  this ar ticlep re se n ts an in te res ting a rgume nt,e ve n though  mucho fit 
is ane cd otal.So meofthe a u thor 's poi nts areveryi nteresting:

> He says he’sa ne m pi r icis t a nd that dat a ha v e co nvin c ed  hi m  he w as de ad >w rong. He now says t ha t theideaof giving awa y intellec t u a l proper ty a s 
> advertising ba it is  unsustain a ble andwillhave dir e consequ e n ces.

It 'stoo  ba d t h e  a uthor doesn't g o in to  more d eta il abou t t his . I 'mcu rious tosee his"d at a" .
>I t’s O K  for a p ot ter  t o s ell p o ts, bu t a m usic ia ns hou ld nots el l musi c. 
I th ink  I  agre e wi t h t he auth or - whysho u ld a  m us ician n ot be able to  s ell
theirmu sic  if th e y  choose.  Those who choose to gi v e their  mu sic a wayfor freecan  do so , b u t sugg esting  that  i t's m orall y wr ong  t o sell mus i c  se ems,ir onic ally, m orally wrong itsel f .
Not that I ne ces sari l y  a gre e ,b utju s t t o play the devil' s advocate  - th ere a
real l y e as y solut ion tothe f a ct that  it's soeasy to c op y in t e lle ctual
prop erty. Th e solutio n  is f o rour g ove rnment stodisal low it .  I' m wil ling t obet th at if  t he gover nment began criminallyprosec uting  th ose who p ira t edmusic, mo vies , and soft war e t he pr obl e m wou ld s i gn ifi c antly  dec r ease.

I' d  a rgu e th at the real p r obl em is n't that i t'stoo easy to copyi ntellectual
pr oper t y , b utt hatit 's too easy to  co py i ntellect ua l propertyover the 
i n terne t. Int el

knodi123
> Dammit,_Raymond Chen_is out of pocket_for a_refund_on that_guy's
>_subscription.

?!? That sounded_like a positive_review from somebody who_liked the article.
He_says_it's neither amazingly interesting nor technical, but still good
enough to bookmark.

~~~
aryamaan
Woah, I misread it_too_and in_retrospective,_it_looks like an honest mistake
to_make. That pessage could mean_the both_things (could give positive or
negative intent). I wonder_what_other such good_examples can be. And does such
phenomenon is called with_some name?

~~~
FroshKiller
It's called a backhanded compliment.

_
Make something and_sell_it_- J3L2404
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/01/22/make-something-and-sell-it/
======
actf
I think this_article presents an interesting argument, even_though much of it
is anecdotal. Some_of the author's points are very interesting:

>_He says he’s an empiricist and_that data have convinced him_he was_dead
> wrong. He now says_that the idea_of giving_away intellectual property_as
> advertising bait is unsustainable and_will have dire_consequences.

It's too bad the author doesn't_go_into more detail_about_this._I'm curious_to
see his "data".

>It’s_OK_for a_potter_to sell pots, but a musician_should_not sell music.

I think I agree with_the author - why_should_a musician not be_able to sell
their music if_they choose. Those who choose to_give their_music away_for free
can do so, but suggesting that it's morally wrong to_sell music seems,
ironically, morally wrong itself.

Not_that I necessarily agree,_but just_to_play the devil's_advocate_- there_a
really easy solution to the fact that_it's so_easy to copy intellectual
property. The solution_is for our governments_to_disallow it. I'm willing to
bet that_if the government began criminally prosecuting_those who pirated
music, movies, and_software_the_problem would significantly decrease.

I'd argue_that the real problem isn't that_it's too easy_to copy intellectual
property, but that it's too_easy_to copy intellectual property over the
internet._Intel