Private school is child slavery!!!

[MoonShadow]

However, this is only assumed to be legitimate because there is no way to determine who minght be the legitimate owner of those coins from within the system itself.

I am not disputing the legitimacy of the possession. I am arguing over the meaning of ownership, whatever is legitimate or illegitimate. Moreover, there is a method to determine who is the legitimate owner the electronic coins:

http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Then, I suspect, that we are arguing semantics across a language divide. 

Careful... you're getting close to ad hominem.

But, yeah... I've said that for days. The language barrier is killing this debate.

I did not imply that his language problems negates the legitimacy of his perspectives.  You most certainly did.  At least in the opinion of the moderator. 

I was implying that his language issues, and my use of language, were not permitting myself to be understood.  The distinction is not trivial.

[MoonShadow]

Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

So, in your definition, if I (psychically and legally) posses the house at the same time my wife (psychically and legally) posses the house, we do not owns the house.

Who owns the house?

That depends on many other issues than possession.  Possession might imply ownership, but possession is not evidence of ownership.  I would wager, if you are anything like the average middle class couple, that the bank owns the house.

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

I will put again, in case you did not read:

Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

The definition of ownership do not regard "property", but "something".

Data is "something".

That definition is incomplete.   Ownership can be described as the right to possession, but not possession itself.  Therein lies the risk of depending upon a single source for the definitions of English words.  English, moreso than most any other Latin derived language, is "squishy" and imprecise.  Which is great for fostering the thought processes that lead to innovation and ideas, as well as other forms of "outside of the box" thinking, but not so great for things that require precise communications of understanding, like engineering. This, in a nutshell, explains why Americans came up with ideas like the mass production line and the Interent; but the Japanese nearly conquored the US car market with the mass production line.

It's also further evidence that Satoshi Nakamoto was not actually Japanese.

[myrkul]

Indeed you are wrong again. I'm glad you're coming to realize this. You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

So, in your definition, if I (psychically and legally) posses the house at the same time my wife (psychically and legally) posses the house, we do not owns the house.

Who owns the house?

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house. To wit: You cannot sell the house without her consent. If you each owned the house, either one (or both!) could sell the house.

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

I see. We both know the meaning of the word "air." Someone copied that data into our brains. The transfer of that data into your brain occurred without my permission. The transfer of that data into my brain happened without your permission. Have you stolen from me? Have I stolen from you?

You are disputing over the act of possessing something which cannot be possessed...

Meaning is data. Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

[augustocroppo]

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

Really... What is information? Nothing or something?

Meaning is data (...)

No.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaning?q=Meaning

Definition of meaning
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action:

Meaning is what is meant by information, not the information.

Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

In another words, you are suggesting that data can be possessed (have as belonging to one; own:), but it cannot be owned ([with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess).

This is a contradictory statement.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

I did not agree with anything from your failed attempts to reformulate your definitions.

Keep trying.

[myrkul]

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

The part that you cut out explains:
To wit: You cannot sell the house without her consent. If you each owned the house, either one (or both!) could sell the house.
Perhaps you'll listen to OED:

each:

used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately:

joint:

shared, held, or made by two or more people together:

You cannot each own the house because you jointly own the house. Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by each person that has it.

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

Really... What is information?

Information. Data. Knowledge. Meaning. Look any of those words up in the dictionary. I suggest dictionary.com, instead of Oxford, since dictionary.com provides more meanings for the words, and may give you a better understanding of the language.

Meaning is data (...)

No.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaning?q=Meaning

Definition of meaning
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action:

Meaning is what is meant by information, not the information.

Meaning is the information which conveys what is meant by other information. A dictionary definition is the information which conveys what is meant by a word. A dictionary definition is the meaning of a word.

Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

In another words, you are suggesting that data can be possessed (have as belonging to one; own:), but it cannot be owned ([with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess).

This is a contradictory statement.

That, the way you wrote it, is a contradictory statement. But you'll notice (or maybe you didn't - but I see you kept them in there) I included the definitions in the words. To explode the definitions in the way you did:
Data can be possessed(to have knowledge of: to possess a language.) but it cannot be owned(to have as belonging to one; have as property: to possess a house and car.).

That is not a contradictory statement.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

I did not agree with anything from your failed attempts to reformulate your definitions.

Keep trying.

You sure?

You are disputing over the act of possessing something which cannot be possessed...

[MoonShadow]

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible; regardless of the legal shorthand that claims that you both might own the house together.  He's talking about data.  You can each possess a copy, but then neither of you owns the data, only the copy that you possess.

Data is "something".

No. Data is information.

Really... What is information? Nothing or something?

Meaning is data (...)

No.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaning?q=Meaning

Definition of meaning
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action:

Meaning is what is meant by information, not the information.

you reall shouldn't attempt to argue semantics with Myrkul.  Not only are you not understanding his point, even if you were correct he would beat you down with experience.  If nothing else, the man does understand the nuances of the words that he chooses to employ.

Data can be possessed but it cannot be owned.

In another words, you are suggesting that data can be possessed (have as belonging to one; own:), but it cannot be owned ([with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess).

This is a contradictory statement.

No, it's not.  Once again, you can own a copy of the data, but no one can own the data itself.  Like this, you buy a book.  You own the object that is the book, but it is just a container for data; otherwise you would have bought a different book.  But you do not own the infromation that the book contains, and no one else can either, because no one can "own" information, the government enforce IP laws notwithstanding.  You literally don't have the right to destroy that data in the possession of others, only your own copy.

But thank you for finally agreeing that you can't own data.

I did not agree with anything from your failed attempts to reformulate your definitions.

Keep trying.

Please, take a step back and let these ideas sink in for a bit.

[augustocroppo]

Perhaps you'll listen to OED:

each:

used to refer to every one of two or more people or things, regarded and identified separately:

joint:

shared, held, or made by two or more people together:

You cannot each own the house because you jointly own the house. Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by each person that has it.

All right, let's deconstruct:

Own: [with object] have (something) as one’s own; possess.

Possess: have as belonging to one; own.

Property:[mass noun] a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.

"You cannot regarded and identified separately possess the house because you two or more people together possess the house."

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

"You cannot have as belonging to one a thing belonging to someone at the same time someone else does. If two people can have as belonging to one something at the same time, neither have as one’s own it, because it is not a thing belonging to someone."

In another words, your statements shows that your definition is not coherent. You are arguing that if two or more entities share the possession of a given object, none can possess the object.

Since I am disputing the meaning of ownership, your answers have already provided enough evidence to me refute your inconsistent arguments:

Sole possession of the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address.

You are contradicting your initial statement. To "change the record for that particular address" it is necessary first to own the private key.

Nope, you must possess the key. If two people can possess the same thing at the same time, neither owns it.

Deconstructed:

Possession: the state of having, owning, or controlling something.

"Sole state of having, owning, or controlling the private keys just means you're the only one who can change the record for that particular address."

"Nope, you must have as belonging to one the key. If two people can have as belonging to one the same thing at the same time, neither have (something) as one’s own it."

I can share any private key with my wife to let she have as belonging to one (possess) the electronic coins I have as one’s own (own).

This is shared ownership, not absence of ownership. Moreover, you made a statement which contradicts your original argument:

"Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by every one of two or more person that has it."

Private keys are data.

Information. Data. Knowledge. Meaning. Look any of those words up in the dictionary. I suggest dictionary.com, instead of Oxford, since dictionary.com provides more meanings for the words, and may give you a better understanding of the language.

You ignored this question: information is nothing or something?

[myrkul]

You are using a very narrow definition of both "own" and "possess." Specifically, you are using the definitions under which the words are interchangeable.

This is a direct result of your reliance on a dictionary definition. Moreover, that dictionary definition provided by a single dictionary. I suggest you broaden your knowledge of the words you are using. For instance:
Possess has 14 meanings. (I am using #6 when I speak of data, and #1 when I speak of property.)
Own has 6 meanings, and an additional 5 idiomatic meanings. (We are both using #3.)


"You cannot separately possess the house because you together possess the house."

Makes sense.

"You cannot have as belonging to one a thing at the same time someone else does. If two people can have as something belonging to one at the same time, neither have it as one’s own, because it is not a thing which can belong to someone."

As does this. This makes it even clearer:

"You cannot have as belonging solely to one a thing at the same time someone else does. If two people can have something as belonging solely to one at the same time, neither have it as one’s own, because it is not a thing which can belong solely to someone."

I can share any private key with my wife to let she have as belonging to one (possess) the electronic coins I have as one’s own (own).

This is shared ownership, not absence of ownership.

It is shared knowledge. In other words, shared possession (definition #6). Since two people cannot simultaneously possess (definition #1) something, neither of you own (definition #3) the data.

"Data, on the other hand, can be possessed separately by every one of two or more people that have it."

Private keys are data.

Indeed they are, and therefore not property. Remember that I use definition #6 of "possess" when I speak of data.

You ignored this question: information is nothing or something?

Neither. Information is a pattern. It may be a pattern of ones and zeros on a hard drive, or impulses in your neurons, or lines in sand. You cannot possess (definition #1) such a pattern, and in the case of the sand lines especially, trying may well destroy it.

[cunicula]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

[augustocroppo]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

No, it's not.  Once again, you can own a copy of the data, but no one can own the data itself. Like this, you buy a book.  You own the object that is the book, but it is just a container for data; otherwise you would have bought a different book.

If books are bought to be read, the buyer have interest to absorb the data imprinted in the book. If the buyer memorize the name of the author, he/she owned data, he/she acted to possess a piece of information. It not means he/she is the legitimate or solely owner of the information, it means that he/she posses an unique piece of information. He/she could forever keep that unique information for itself and be the only owner, or then express that unique information and share the ownership.

But you do not own the infromation that the book contains, and no one else can either, because no one can "own" information, the government enforce IP laws notwithstanding.

Of course not! For any reader would be quite difficult to completely own the information contained in the book. That is why the author is recognized as the legitimate owner of the information contained in a book. The author produced the information from his own data. He is completely aware of the information produced while the reader is not. The book content becomes the data transferred from a owner (author) to another owner (reader).

You literally don't have the right to destroy that data in the possession of others, only your own copy.

I am not arguing over the right to destroy data in possession of others. I am arguing over the definition of ownership. In the moment you own certain thing, it not means other are granted with ability to destroy your possession. What could or not could be done regarding ownership is quite relative to the moral standards of a certain society.

[myrkul]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

Either you are of sub-par intelligence, or intentionally misrepresenting my words.

You, since you are using your apartment, would then own it. (syndicalism, remember?) You would then be part owner of a building. Your landlord would be the manager of this building, and possibly part owner as well (if he has an apartment in the building). You (yourself and the other tenants) could, of course, hire another manager, if this one isn't to your liking.

[MoonShadow]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

Ask Dr. Zhivago.

[myrkul]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

I didn't even bother to read past this point. They're both using the bike. If they each possessed the bike, they could steer it in different directions.

[MoonShadow]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

Cute.  Use an object designed to be utilized by two people at once as your example.  Fair enough, it's not impossible, if that is part of the design.  But do both people possess a car, if only one can drive it while the other rides?  Even in your photo, the woman in the back is not in control of the bike, so does she possess it?  That's arguable.  Can two people own a book?  Sure, if they have agreed to share it; but they can't both use it (read it) at the same time, so they can't both possess it at the same time.  My daughter uses my kindle, but I own it and do (sometimes) use it.  Even if she isn't reading it, if it's in her backpack she is in possession of it, and thus I cannot use it.

No, it's not.  Once again, you can own a copy of the data, but no one can own the data itself. Like this, you buy a book.  You own the object that is the book, but it is just a container for data; otherwise you would have bought a different book.

If books are bought to be read, the buyer have interest to absorb the data imprinted in the book. If the buyer memorize the name of the author, he/she owned data, he/she acted to possess a piece of information. It not means he/she is the legitimate or solely owner of the information, it means that he/she posses an unique piece of information. He/she could forever keep that unique information for itself and be the only owner, or then express that unique information and share the ownership.

However unique any person's take upon that data, he cannot own that data. He can only own the container, be it a book or his own mind.  I have a right to destroy a book I bought, and my own person if I choose.  You do not have any such right, and couldn't destroy my data otherwise.  There are many definitions of ownership, but the legitimate authority to destroy that property is a simple and necessary component.  If I don't have the right to destroy my book, then I don't own it.

But you do not own the infromation that the book contains, and no one else can either, because no one can "own" information, the government enforce IP laws notwithstanding.

Of course not! For any reader would be quite difficult to completely own the information contained in the book. That is why the author is recognized as the legitimate owner of the information contained in a book. The author produced the information from his own data. He is completely aware of the information produced while the reader is not. The book content becomes the data transferred from a owner (author) to another owner (reader).

I don't recognize any such thing, and neither does US copyright law.  Such ownership was specificly rejected by the framers of the US Consittution, which only provides for a limited term monopoly on copying of such information.  If it were actual property, then those rights would not just be transferable & inheritable, but eternal.  They are, fortunately, limited in time and scope.

And fair use by libraires & schools would be theft.

You literally don't have the right to destroy that data in the possession of others, only your own copy.

I am not arguing over the right to destroy data in possession of others. I am arguing over the definition of ownership. In the moment you own certain thing, it not means other are granted with ability to destroy your possession.

It does in English.

What could or not could be done regarding ownership is quite relative to the moral standards of a certain society.

Certainly not.

[fornit]

medieval knights often fought for hours and hours, because nobody got the weapons to hurt anyone. in the end, it was often just the one that was too exhausted to stand that got killed.

you guys really need to learn how to use a longbow, if you get my drift...

[augustocroppo]

Neither. Information is a pattern. It may be a pattern of ones and zeros on a hard drive, or impulses in your neurons, or lines in sand. You cannot possess (definition #1) such a pattern, and in the case of the sand lines especially, trying may well destroy it.

Of course information is a pattern!

You refusal to admit that is "something" is what I expected from a deceiver like you. There is no middle point to justify "neither". Information is "something", not "nothing". If information is neither "something" or "nothing", it only can be a thing.

This particular argumentation begun with:

You can't own data, and copying isn't stealing.

Yes, I can own data.

No, you can't. Data isn't property.

Which I replied:

I will put again, in case you did not read:

Definition of ownership
noun
the act, state, or right of possessing something

The definition of ownership do not regard "property", but "something".

Data is "something".

Data can be property if you admit that data is a pattern:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/property?s=t

property
 
— n  , pl -ties
1.   something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc
2.   law  the right to possess, use, and dispose of anything
3.   possessions collectively or the fact of owning possessions of value
4.   a. a piece of land or real estate, esp used for agricultural purposes
    b. ( as modifier ): property rights
5.   chiefly  ( Austral ) a ranch or station, esp a small one
6.   a quality, attribute, or distinctive feature of anything, esp a characteristic attribute such as the density or strength of a material
7.   obsolete logic  another name for proprium
8.   Usually shortened to: prop  any movable object used on the set of a stage play or film

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/information?q=information

Definition of information
noun
[mass noun]
(...)
2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information?s=t

information

in·for·ma·tion
noun
1.
knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2.
knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.
the act or fact of informing.
4.
an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.
5.
Directory Assistance.
 
— n
1. knowledge acquired through experience or study
2. knowledge of specific and timely events or situations; news
3. the act of informing or the condition of being informed
4. a. an office, agency, etc, providing information
    b. ( as modifier ): information service
5. a. a charge or complaint made before justices of the peace, usually on oath, to institute summary criminal proceedings
    b. a complaint filed on behalf of the Crown, usually by the attorney general
6. computing
    a. the meaning given to data by the way in which it is interpreted
    b. another word for data
7. informal too much information  I don't want to hear any more

[myrkul]

medieval knights often fought for hours and hours, because nobody got the weapons to hurt anyone. in the end, it was often just the one that was too exhausted to stand that got killed.

you guys really need to learn how to use a longbow, if you get my drift...

Unfortunately there is no longbow, to punch through his willful ignorance and reliance on a partial understanding of the language he is conversing in. But rest assured, I have the greater stamina.

[cunicula]

So I guess my apartment will be homesteaded. I (state employee) rent the apartment. My landlord (state employee) leases the apartment for a fixed term. The property development company (joint stock company, majority owned by the state) leases the land below the apartment for a fixed term and leases the public facilities. The government owns the land.

Who gets to homestead the apartment? If it is syndicated, I am afraid the dictator's family syndicate will quickly acquire it.

[sorry that there is so much state making things complicated. I am lucky enough to live in a profoundly statist society.]

Either you are of sub-par intelligence, or intentionally misrepresenting my words.

You, since you are using your apartment, would then own it. (syndicalism, remember?) You would then be part owner of a building. Your landlord would be the manager of this building, and possibly part owner as well (if he has an apartment in the building). You (yourself and the other tenants) could, of course, hire another manager, if this one isn't to your liking.

I see, so we start by redistributing all property to its current occupiers. Land to the tiller style, like a good developmental state, like the US in Hawaii or Maoist China.
The plan is to take over and expropriate property owners. Good plan.

Then once the initial expropriation is done with, we open up the parks, oceans, and stuff for homesteading.

Now people can build up new fortunes (or otherwise) in a stateless society.

Now I see why you guys are so into gold. All assets outside of direct possession get redistributed, so the only way of retaining property is by having it in your direct possession.
Ergo, buy gold.

[augustocroppo]

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible;

Two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time. That is not physically impossible:

(...)

Cute.  Use an object designed to be utilized by two people at once as your example.  Fair enough, it's not impossible, if that is part of the design.  But do both people possess a car, if only one can drive it while the other rides?  Even in your photo, the woman in the back is not in control of the bike, so does she possess it?  That's arguable.

Whatever is arguable or not, I have demonstrated that two or more people can posses a singular object at the same time.

You do not each separately possess the house. You jointly own the house.

So:

You cannot possess property at the same time someone else does. If two people can possess something at the same time, neither owns it, because it is not property.

How I do not own the house if jointly own the house?

He's not talking about a house.  You can't both, at the same time, possess a singular object.  That's physically impossible; regardless of the legal shorthand that claims that you both might own the house together.  He's talking about data.  You can each possess a copy, but then neither of you owns the data, only the copy that you possess.

Whatever is the house or the data (private key), two or more people can share a single object at the same time. Therefore they can both share the ownership. Only the absence of an act, state or right to possess the object would mean an absence of ownership.

[myrkul]

Neither. Information is a pattern. It may be a pattern of ones and zeros on a hard drive, or impulses in your neurons, or lines in sand. You cannot possess (definition #1) such a pattern, and in the case of the sand lines especially, trying may well destroy it.

Of course information is a pattern!

You refusal to admit that is "something" is what I expected from a deceiver like you. There is no middle point to justify "neither". Information is "something", not "nothing". If information is neither "something" or "nothing", it only can be a thing.

Nope, it is an arrangement of things. An arrangement of things is not a thing itself. If I draw a set of lines in the sand, and you draw an identical set of lines in the sand, have you stolen from me? You've copied my pattern, my information. And you did so without my permission. It could be argued that simply by looking at the pattern, you're making a copy, inside your own mind. If information is property, I demand that you forget my works! Give me back my property!