Topic: Private school is child slavery!!! - page 5. (Read 8816 times)

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.

Ask Dr. Zhivago.

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.

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




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.


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 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.

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.]

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."

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.

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

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.

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 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:


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.


You ignored this question: information is nothing or something?

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.


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


No.

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


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.