Re: VAX software available for download

From: AEF (spamsink2001_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/28/05 

Date: 27 Jun 2005 15:26:19 -0700

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <1119895919.982108.17200@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> In article <1119887254.046020.321350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "AEF" <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> > Then why couldn't the owner of Grand Central Terminal tear it down?
> >>
> >> Because we have a warped court system.
> >
> > I beg to differ in this case! GCT is a magnificent building that
> > deserves to be protected. Not as good as Penn Station was, but still,
> > pretty good.
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have no artistic sense at all
> and see most things that others consider "great art" as just so much
> junk. (Like the recent fiasco in Central Park) That being the case,
> I see no reason to limit ownership rights because of someone else's
> artistic sense. If you think it should be preserved, buy it yourself.
> At what ever price the owner asks. If you think it is worth it you will
> raise the money but if not, what right do you have to tell me I have to
> incur the monetary loss in order to please your aesthetic sense?

Well, I don't know the details of the GCT. Maybe the owners were
compensated. I don't know. But I'm glad it's still there. We're just
going to differ on this one. Also, the train station has a great
economic value for getting commuters to and from NYC. So, it's not just
artisitic in value. Also, many, many advertisements contain pictures or
footage using GCT as a backdrop, giving more benefits. It's also
valuable as a tourist atraction, bringing yet more money to the city.
It's more than just "art".

In one sense it's just a zoning decision, but admittedly a very focused
one.

>
> >
> >> > Then why are companies sued for defective products?
> >>
> >> For the same reason they are sued when some idiot does something really
> >> stupid with their product that it was not designed for and gets hurt.
> >> (Remember, we have the court system that awarded several million dollars
> >> for loss of psychic ability after a CAT-scan.)
> >
> >
> > Well, there's a down side to everything. And that's either the fault of
> > the court system and/or some particular bad laws.
> >
> >
> >> > Why does Exxon have
> >> > to "use" its Esso trademark to protect it?
> >>
> >> Because trademarks are a totally different concept with different
> >> rules entirely. A more important question would have been what right
> >> did the government have to tell them they had to change their name
> >> in the US? But that isn't generic to the discussion. :-)
> >
> >
> > Depends what you mean by "right". Rights are decided by people. Since
> > people will in general differ on what's right, we have government. Not
> > perfect by a long shot, but certainly better than anarchy. And even if
> > there is some ultimate set of "God-given rights", people have no way to
> > know exactly what these are and will differ on what they are anyway. So
> > ultimately they are decided by people and are subject to discussion as
> > to how things "should be".
> >
> > People who succeed in the US do so, in part, because the U.S.
> > Government, as imperfect as it is, has established and maintains an
> > environment in which businesses and individuals can succeed. For this
> > reason I find it not unreasonable that *something* is owed to the govt
> > for this. What exactly that should be I'm not here to say. But I don't
> > believe the "I did it all on my own so I can do what I want with it"
> > story. And in a similar, but slightly different vein, some sports
> > person once observed, "Some people are born on third base and act as if
> > they had hit a triple."
> >
> > Yes, ownership means a lot. I'm just trying to say that it is not the
> > be all and end all that you appear to be saying. If I misunderstood you
> > about this, I apologize. In this particular case it there may well be
> > no law to prevent HP from dropping VMS. But maybe there *should* be.
>
> Again, I ask why? If Steven King wanted to take the original manuscript
> for "It" or "Carrie" or any other of his many successes (mind you, I
> only ever liked one of his stories and tend not to bother reading most
> of what he writes) and burn it in his fireplace so that no one ever saw
> it, is that not his right? What will become of VMS at the end of it's

I have no problem with that. No essential information is lost. But I
don't think he should be allowed to burn all copies of his books. Then
all the information would be lost. Sources and images are not the same,
however. I suppose you could reverse engineer though.

> days is stuill unknown. Like others, I would like to think that when
> the owner at that point (and we also have no way of knowing who that
> may be) will just release it all to the public trust. But they have
> no real obligation to do so. And, this whole discussion may be academic
> as, if most of us have our way, VMS will last for a long time to come
> and will only die when it is no longer needed or wanted by anyone.

>
> >
> > And even in the computer biz, there are restrictions. Export
> > restrictions for national security,
>
> Another good reason not to let the government get involved any more
> than they already are. Do you know how many VAXen running Unix were
> found behind the Iron Curtain when it finally fell? (Both were
> restricted export items!)

Well, someone, maybe it wasn't you, mentioned that there are no
ownership restrictions in the computer biz. I was just countering that.
I am not, in general, a fan of restrictions on trade unless there is a
very good reason. National security certainly ranks high for me. And
some VAX systems were running there. So? No restriction is perfect. The
Space Shuttle blew up, twice (okay, broke up the second time)! There
still going to send up more.

>
> > for one. Anti-trust restrictions
> > (ask BG!) for two.
>
> I don't necessarily agree with most anti-trust legislation. Most
> monopolistic practices involve breaking enough other laws that
> special ones (especially ones without teeth) are never necessary.

I see this as government at least trying or pretending to act for the
public good. Yes, govt does a lot of stupid and bad things. Like the
odd/even licesne plate scheme during the gas-line days (1973, 1979) to
name a minor grievance of mine. But people succeed in the U.S. in part
because govt. has done many things right. Who's going to protect
ownership? The govt.! If someone starts cranking out free copies of
software, who's going to stop it? You have to give govt. credit for
that. They do do some things right!

>
> >
> >> > Why can't GM make sell cars
> >> > that don't have pollution controls?
> >>
> >> For the same reason I can't drive on the I81 at 150 mph. Our elected
> >> government decided that it was in the public good to limit pollution
> >> and it isn't worth the cost of making two differnt models in order to
> >> service those places that have less strict requirements. (it should
> >> be noted that even after both the US and Europe had strict pollution
> >> requirements VW still manufactured the old Beetle without emissions
> >> control in Mexico for sale in those places that still allowed them.)
> >
> > I was just making a point with this one, as with the others.
>
> Actually, GM does "make" and sell cars without pollution controls as do
> most of the other car manufacturers worldwide. You can't drive them on
> the street, but they are free to make and sell them. I have piles of
> catalogs for parts for my cars that specifically say if I put these
> parts on my car it will no longer be legal on the street. They have
> no problem making or selling them.

OK.

>
> >
> >>
> >> > Why can't a developer build an
> >> > office building ON HIS OWN LAND when it is zoned as a residential area?
> >>
> >> Because it affects others than himself. And the one legitimate purpose
> >> of government is to protect it's citizenry. He is free to convince those
> >> he would affect that his plan is good for them and the zoning should be
> >> changed.
> >
> > And eliminating VMS would also affect others.
>
> Matter of opinion. It is doubtful that more than .002055% of americans
> would even notice it if it went away tomorrow. :-)

But without VMS our military will have a harder time protecting us! :-)

> >> > Copyright laws are another example. Patents expire.
> >>
> >> Copyrights also expire.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There are tons of laws about restrictions on ownership. There are even
> >> > some things you are not allowed to own at all!
> >>
> >> Most restrictions are about protecting others from the stupid acts of
> >> the few. Exactly how does this apply to the licensing of VMS?
> >
> >
> > My primary point is that ownership does not automatically mean you can
> > do what you want no matter what.
>
> True, up to a point. SO it looks like you need to find a way to
> convince the Congress that saving VMS is somehow int he public
> interest. Considering that they don't even condsider it valuable
> enough to use themselves, I don't hink you'll have much success.

OK. But the gov't's military depends on VMS! So they have an interest.

> > I, for one, am very glad GCT was not
> > torn down. It's too bad they couldn't save Penn Station, but I digress.
>
> And as I said above, I don't agree. But in any case, I don't see why
> someone else should bear the cost of pleasing your aesthetics. That is
> a flaw in our legal system.

Maybe they were compensated? I'll see if I can find out.

> > Some restrictions are for the public good: patents, copyrights, zoning,
> > which have nothing to do with protecting anyone from stupid acts.
>
> True, their purpose is to support ambition and not stifle it. Otherwise,
> we will end out like the rest of the world.

Ah, so you agree there is some good that flows from govt. OK.

I understand your concerns about govt. abuse and such. I think that is
an important concern. However, much good comes from govt (no one
notices the engine when it runs well and quitely!) and I think it is a
good thing to try to make govt better. The U.S. is an awesome economic
power, and I think govt. should get at least some credit for that
(certainly not all credit, of course!)

Relax, man. This is just a discussion and we are "honorable debating
opponents". I respect your point of view.

>
> bill
>
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
> bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VAX software available for download
    ... going to differ on this one. ... >> Yes, ownership means a lot. ... What will become of VMS at the end of it's ... govt does a lot of stupid and bad things. ...
    (comp.sys.dec)
  • Re: VAX software available for download
    ... None of which is relevant to the owner. ... What will become of VMS at the end of it's ... I only object to the government getting involved ... govt does a lot of stupid and bad things. ...
    (comp.sys.dec)
  • Re: VAX software available for download
    ... None of which is relevant to the owner. ... What will become of VMS at the end of it's ... I only object to the government getting involved ... govt does a lot of stupid and bad things. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: DBS needs a complete overhaul
    ... LKYs Mother wrote: ... But the majority of share ownership is still with the Govt through ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)