This whole thread is built on a misconception. Modern Java VMs, such has Sun's HotSpot on Windows or IBM's 1.1.8, produce code that is as fast or faster then that produced by static compilers. Some things to understand: (1) Java code IS compiled. Its just compiled at run-time rather then build-time. The result is the same however-- machine code running on your machine. (2) JITs have a number of advantages over static compilers: (a) A static compiler must compile for a lowest common denominator platform (typicly Pentium). A JIT can determine the processor type at run-time and produce processor-tuned code. (b) A static compiler must "guess safe" in situations where code is ambiguous. A JIT can go ahead and take risky optimizations because it can un-optimize if the need arises. One place this occurs a lot is in in- lining. The static compiler can only safely in-line finals. The JIT can try to in-line anything and adjust by how the code actually gets used. (HotSpot calls this "agressive inlining" and you can read about it at the HotSpot section of java.sun.com) Simple fact. For raw computation that doesn't incurr array bounds checking, Java is as fast or faster today then C/C++. (And static compiling doesn't help you with the bounds checking penalty.) There are some actual experiemntal numbers and a chapter discussing this and other Java v. native code issues in "Java(tm) Platform performance: Strategies and tctics" coming out at JavaOne. (Its already up for pre-order at amazon...)
I hear a variety of views expressed here that are worth sorting out.
(1) Hey its MY copy so I'm not depriving anyone of anything.
Utter nonsense. This shows a total disregard for the artists right to be compensated for his or her efforts-- a right gauranteed under Copyright law. Consider this, copyright law was created to encourage the creation of artistic works by professional artists. Without copyright law there would BE no Metallic, Star Wars or any other work of artistic expression made by full time artists. They'd all have to get "real jobs" producing physical and thus un-copyable products.
Is that the world you really want to live in?
(2) MP3s encourage record sales.
This may in fact be true, but it has the same flaw as the next argument, so I'll adress them together.
(3) There should be a "better way" for artists to make money.
Both of these arguments deny the artist the right to decide how they wish to be compensated for their work. If you really HAVE a better way then I'm sure at least some will be happy to listen but its THEIR decision.
I may think theres a better way for YOU to earn your money. I might think you'ld be better off digging ditches, but I DONT have the right to MAKE you do so.
And in the end this IS what this is about, an artists right to control their work and decide how they want to be compensated and if they want to be compensated.
Oh I left one argument for last 'cause its just basicly dumb...
(4) The artist released their work to the public.
No they didn't. Thats called "Public Domain". An artist CAN decided to release their work to the public domain but noone does-- not even Stahlman. If he did he couldn't enforce a license argeement, ergo no GPL.
Even Stahlman, at the end, DEPENDS on Copyright laws to allow him to see that his work is used as he wishes it used. And I don't see anyone at Slashdot attacking the GPL....
I won't even justify the wordgames over "theft" by calling it an argument. At best its sophistry.
I hear a variety of views expressed here that are worth sorting out. (1) Hey its MY copy so I'm not depriving anyoen of anything. Utter nonsense. This shows a total disregard for the artists right to be comepnsate for his or her efforts-- a right gauranteed under Copyright law. Consider this, copyright law was created to encourage the creation of artistic rowks by p[rofessionala rtists. Withotu copyright law there would BE no Metallic, Star Wars or any other work of artistic expression amde by full time artists. They'd all have to get "real jobs" producing physical and thus un-copyable products. Is that the world you really want to live in? (2) MP3s encourage record sales. This may in fact be true, but it ahs the same flaw as the next argument, so I'll adres them together. (3) There shodul be a "better way" for artists to make money. Both of these arguments deny the artist the right to decide how they wish to be comepnsated for their work. If you really HAVE a better way then I'm sure at least some will be happy to listen but its THEIR decision. I may think theres a better way for YOu to earn your money. I might think you'ld be better off digging ditches, but I DONT have the right to MAKE you do so. And in teh end this IS what this is about, an artists right to control their work and decide how theyw ant to be comepnsated and if they want to be compensated. Oh I left one argumetn for last c'ause its just basicly dumb... (4) The arist released their work to the public. No they didn't. Thats called "OPublic Domain". Abn artist CAN decided to release their work to the public domain but nooen does-- not even Stahlman. If he did he couldn't enforce a license argeement, ergo no GPL. Even Stahlman, at the end, DEPENDS on Copyright laws to allow him to see that his work is used as he wishes it used. And I don't see anyone at Slashdot attacking the GPL....
+++ Please name one jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, in which copyright violation is covered under theft laws
+++
Please name one jurisdiction that has "theft" laws by your defintion. There are none. Its called "larceny" under the law.
Theft is a common term and applies to copyright infringement as well as grand larceny. Ever heard of "theft of service"? That doesn't invovlve a physical piece of property, either.
Can we now stop playing STUPID semantic games? If you copy copyrighted materials to which you do not own the copyrights, you are a crook illegaliy depriving the author of their rights to their creation.
What kind of crook you call it is totally a red herring and smacks of fundamentalist word-games.
+++ Please name one jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, in which copyright violation is covered under theft laws +++ Please name one jurisdiction thats has "theft" laws by your defintion. There are none. Its called "larceny" under the law. Theft is a common term and applies to copyright infringement as well as grand larcenary. Can we now stop playing STUPID semantic games? If you copy copyrighted materails to which you do not own the copyrights, you are a crook. What kind of crook is totally a red herring.
+++ What I did when I read this is think about what affect this wide spread "free" distribution of music has done for me. What I quickly figured out is that it significantly expanded the range of music I listen to and got me to buy a couple different albums. Including a Metallica album
++++
This is a totally differnt arguemnt, and one that POTENTIALLY respects the authors rights to compensation for their work.
I say potentially because, in order to be real respect, you have to give the author the right to opt in or out.
I think a good case can be made that programs like Napster and gnutella can perfrom the same functions as the radio stations, whcih yes is to advertise the music. In order to be successful though it will have to be somethign the artists can feel comfortable about. Based on the radio model I see the following things needed.
(1) MOST of all that contingent proposing this MUST get themselves distanced from the choldren who just think they shouldnt have to pay for anything they can invisibly steal. As long as these two arguments are always uttered in the same breath the secodn will get no where.
(2) Some kind of limit has to be built in to prevent playing an entie albumn, or even one side of an album. There is a strict agreement betwen the radio stations and the record companies that this is not done. This agreement keeps the record industry comfortable that thsoe who like the music have a reason to go out and buy the albumn.
Its worth noting that a number of free and partially free distribution schemes were tried in the shareware community. Giving it all away and asking for a volutary donation produced virtually no revenue. Simialrly, giving almost nthoiing and asking for apyment for the rest produced very little revenue. Waht finally worked was about a 50/50 split where the user got the first 50% of the experience for free but had to pony up for the rest. It was this formula that made ID rich.
Face facts, people: copying is not stealing. If you steal something from me you deprive me of its use - I no longer have it. If you copy a song I write and record, I still "have" the song as much as I ever did.
++++
Simplsitic, juvenlie, and wrong.
When you steal a candy bar do you deprive anyone of a candy bar? No, in today's mechanized society there is effectively an infinite supply of candy bars. All you have deprived someone of is their right to be compensated for the work put into making that candy bar.
Our economy as much about labor as it is about labor. The concept of intellectual property was designed to promote the creation of abstract things like the books you read, the movies you watch, and yes the music you listen to.
What do you think "Copyright" means? Literally it means "the right to copy." Withotu contro lof that right an author can have no value from his or her work, and therefor cannto put value such as his or her time and energy INTO that work.
>> flame warning When you tell your boss you don't want a paycheck, come bsck and tell us you think others labors should be free. At that point, you might be a revolutionary. Until then the original poster is right and you and all others who make this nosnense argument are just spoliled, ill socialized children trying to justify stealing a candy bar. flame off
The difference between socialism and theft is whether you give up what YOU posess before asking others to do the same.
++++ Face facts, people: copying is not stealing. If you steal something from me you deprive me of its use - I no longer have it. If you copy a song I write and record, I still "have" the song as much as I ever did. ++++ Simplsitic, juvenlie, and wrong. When you steal a candy bar do you deprive anyone of a candy bar? No, there is effectively an infinite supply of candy bars. All you have deprived someoen of is their right to by compensated for the work ptu into makign thatc andy bar. Our economy is not about property as muchas it is about labor. The concept of intellectual property was designed to promote the creation of abstract things like the books you read, the movies you watch, and yes the music you lsiten to. What do you think "Copyright" means? Literally it means "the right to copy." Withotu contro lof that right an author can have no value from his ro her work, and therefor cannto put value such as his or her time and energy INTO that work. When you tell your boss you don't want a paycheck, coem abck and tell us you think others labors should be free. At that point, you might be a revoltionary. The defference between socialism and theft is whether you give up what YOU posess before asking others to do the same. The origanal poster is right... grow up, read up, and learn something.
"Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet. "
I think in fact this is GOOD for a barrier free inetrnet. A true medium for the open exchange of ideas can only exist in an atmosphere of respect for intellectual property. This includes properly compensating a cretoir for their work in the amnner they wish to be comepnsated.
Copyright law isn't some underhanded scheme to dprive you of your rights. It was created to foster the creation of intellectual property and to allow for professional creators thereof.
Free music means no commercial music. Think carefully about what a world will be like when Metallcia, or Billy joel, or Wierd Al, or whomever you enjoy has to go do something else to make a living...
What I personally find disengenous is that the champions of free intelelctual property by and large are totally consumers, not creators. Maybe THEY should stop getting apid for whatever it is THEY do to pay the bills...
Okay, flame away. I know this isn't the invouge Slashdot opinion and its a reality a lot of people don't want to hear.
And though I don't remmeber him specificly saying "we're not supporting the PC anymore" he did go into great length about how it was impossible to break into a market that MS controls with such a stranglehold and that theyw ere giving that arget up in favor of the embedded appliance market.
I geuss the question is, how much effort (read money) are they going to put into supporting a platform they have given up as a revenue source? I can see them tracking the developments where they port witha recompile but I can't imagiena lot of PC specific development.
Its too bad too, becauser IMO "Free BeOs" was exactly the strategy they needed to become 'another Linux'.
lol. I liked your secodn coming comment. Its not unusual for the masses to trat any new branch of science as magic. Look back at all the crazy ads for devices that used "the wonders of electrical ebnergy" in the 1900s. Myth making is what humans do when they can't understand soemthing or don't want to be btohered with the effort it wil ltake to reach that understanding.
This makes NO sense at all. Thsi is a fancy way of describing magic-- attemmpting to maniupalte an object (the particle) by manipualting its referrent (a thought abotu the aprticle.) That thought is something totally speerate and distinct form the aprticle itself with no connection in ANY realm, sub-atomic or otherwise. Besides, even if it DID make any physcis sense (which it doesn't) the act of MEASURING that change itself would influence the particle far beyond the effect being measured thus losing your data. Total psuedo-science hogwash. Either someone has doen the usual nonsense of attaching a "respected name" to trash to give it an air of validity (most likely)OR someone totally misunderstood a patent they were reading. Isn't misinformation net-style fun?
Are they dead? probably. Would I buy a product with them ober oen withotu them? Absolutely. Prinetd mnauals are a necessity to me. I have to take these PDFs out and have them printed and bound at Kinkos these days which costs me another $20- $50 dependign on the size of the book. Frankly I resent that because its not like the software has gotten any cheaper.
This was my business (engineering on-line networked games on the internet) a job ago so let me set you straight. "Speed" is a much abused term. It can refer to Bandwidth, Latency, cxonnect time, or any combination thereof. Geosynchronous orbit is VERY high up. The speed of light believe it or not is your limiting factor. Bouncing a singal off a geosynch satellite takes a LONG time in terms of ping/latency times. This is unavoidable by this century's understanding of physics. Speed of light is fixed. Satellite commuicatio nis genreally high bandwidth, and "always on" thus low conenct time, but latency is bad. When they talk about "analog modems" its kidn of a straw man. Analog modems are old, bad technology. They will beat a stellite in tyerms of "normal" latency BUT they are prone to latency spikes from the "retrain" when they have trouble with the line that can be as large as 6 seconds. Theya re also very slow to connect. Analog mdoems though are goign out of service fast. The currently expanding technologies are xDSL and Cable Modem. Both are always on and low latency (much lower then a satellite can possibly be)but they do not have the kind of bandwidth a staellite can potentailly pump at you. Hope that answers your questions
I could use some help from a glossary.
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
There's an age old truth in writing.
If you can't say it in plain english then you really don't know what you are talking about.
I learned this from my parents. The authors of over 50 books and uncounted hundreds of magazine articles. (They also taught professional writing at the UW-Madison extension for many years.)
gives a wonderful lecture that starts with the staement "Science runs on incompetance."
And yes, he is a scientist-- a systems-science approach botanist.
Ironicly, after showing how the scientific structures basically prevent most truely new dieas from gaining the wide audiance the need for acceptance, he concluded with the observation that this is necessary. Withotu such constraints science would be TOO creative and nothing woudl get explored in depth.
A moment of philosophy:
The world is what it is and is ultimately unmeasurable by us in any direct way. All we have are the inputs of our flawed senses and the arbitrary pattern matchign of our intellect. We are model builders and not Truth finders. Truth is unacessible.
What's left to judge our models by are just the dual criteria of utility and esthetics. (Predictive cability is a utility measure. Occam's razor is an esthetic measure.) All real scientists know this, unfortunately they usually aren't terribly good at communciating this to the common man.
America invented bio-terrorism.
on
Living Terrors
·
· Score: 2
Actually, it was bio-genocide.
If you didn't know this, buy and read "Bury my heart at wounded knee."
Accountabiltiy requries some form of non-forgible identity.
These are lessons al llearned early in the online games industry. Why do you think you need to buy an Everquest box to play everquest? for the revenue? Not particualrly, the box sales rvenue is dwarfed by the monthly recurring revenue from subscription.
The reason is attach a significant cost (you $50 to $60) to having to create a new identity. Your identity being the key-code shipepd in the box. This makes the threat of ostracism real adn th threat of ostracism is traditionally what keeps communities functioning.
Okay, I know this reality of life won't be popular with at least one slashdot contingent, so let the flames begin.
It measures what they PURPORT they MIGHT do when questioned on their activities by an authority figure. (the researcher.) Anyone who knows anything about building social psychology studies would dismiss this out of hand.
I will say this for the reference. My wife just finished taking Psychological Research Methods in college. This pointer should be a great one for her ex-TA to play "whats wrong with this study" with.
An excelent discussion. It should be noted though that large companies by and large don't count on their lawyer-head-count to protect themselves from infringement clamins.
Instead, large software companies build libraries of software patents of their own. Should anyone attempt to sue them, the immediately go through their own library and this company's products looking for the almost inevitable counter-claim. they then play "I won't sue you if you don't sue me."
IMO this leads to an interesting area of supposition. Suppsoe one of these large companies wants to shut down a garage shop. What recourse does the garage shop have? Certainly they can't play the big boys' game.
This is the single msot damaging part of the idea of software patents as applied to the american software industry, IMO. We get our vitality msotly from the small independnat developers and they can all potentailly be run out of business with this stuff.
How then do we protect them? One answer would be to allow them to play the same game the big boys do. This would take the form of a patent trust, administered by some industry recognized neutral party, perhapse the EFF or someone similar. An individual developer or company could become a member of the trust and gain access to its patent library in return for agreeing to an unconditional license of its own patents to all other trust members. In addition the trust would have to be granted the right to sue others for infringement of any of those patents.
This would give small and large developers alike an equal patent library upon the strength of which to safely develop.
An excelent discussion. It should be noted though that large companies by and large don't count on their lawyer-head-count to protect themselves from infringement clamins. Instead, large software companies build libraries of software patents of their own. Should anyone attempt to sue them, the immediately go through their own library and this company's products looking for the almost inevitable counter-claim. they then play "I won't sue you if you don't sue me." IMO this leads to an interesting area of supposition. Suppsoe one of these large companies wants to shut down a garage shop. What recourse does the garage shop have? Certainly they can't play the big boys' game. This is the single msot damaging part of the idea of software patents as applied to the american software industry, IMO. We get our vitality msotly from the small independnat developers and they can all potentailly be run out of business with this stuff. How then do we protect them? One answer would be to allow them to play the same game the big boys do. This would take the form of a patent trust, administered by some industry recognized neutral party, perhapse the EFF or someone similar. An individual developer or company could become a member of the trust and gain access to its patent library in return for agreeing to an unconditional license of its own patents to all other trust members. In addition the trust would have to be granted the right to sue others for infringement of any of those patents. This would give small and large developers alike an equal patent library upon the strength of which to safely develop. Anyway, its a thought...
I don't knwo if this woudl count as "unreasonable".. certainly its not as bad as the 1 click shopping or the famous Xor-d cursor BUT
The LZW patent has certainly been routinely enforced to the egneral discomfort of a segment of the industry. The one, to my mind, brinsg up two issues-- one is the issue of true invention v. just the application of standard industry problem solving approahes to a new area. The other is the question of where "software algorithym" ends and "natural law" begins. (Mathematical formulae are not patentable traditionally, as I understand it, because theya re not seen as invention but merely discovery of existing natural laws. Most software algortihms really aren't very far from mathematical fomulae...)
The real issue here is that the courts came up with a highly questionable interpretation of the law when they said that domain names were not protected by trademark. (If you are going to argue with me, please read up first on what a trademark is, why it is granted, and what consitutes infringement. If you do so, you may find you really don't have any disagreement.)
When congress disagrees with the way the courts interpret a law it is their duty to enact new legislation that makes the intent of the laws clearer to the courts.
This is our system in action, no more and no less.
As otehrs have mentioned, what you are describing soudsn like a tech or trade school (associate degree) not a computer science degree. Computer Science will not teach you much in the way of specific languages, operating systems, or tools. This would be fairly useless as it would be out of date by the tiem you garduated and down rigth obsolete within your first 10 yearsi n the industry. Computer Science WILL teach you what a language, operating systemn or application truely is. It will teach you the ideas and techniques that go into designing computer software technology. This will not only teach you how you mgiht write your own lanaguages or operating systems but, criticly, give you the tools to understand quickly new developments in the field as they arise. This is the difference between a programmer and a software engineer, and is like the difference between a mechanic and an automotive designer. If you WANT to be just a programmer then skip college, do a tech school, and start getting industry experience. If you want to work at the top of the industry and one the msot intrestin things, go to a good Computer Science college and study software engineering. Among the top computer science schools at least used to be: MIT, Cal-Tech, Stanford, University of California @ Berkely, University of Wisconsin @ Madision. The first three are private schools. They are very hard to get into and very expensive, but they give their students the msot support and encouragement. If you are a really fine student sometimes they will help with the costs. The last 2 are state universities. They are easier to get into and cost less but they are factories and, because they let so many mroe students in, actively try to fail students out. If you go to a state school, be prepared to actively fight to get the classes you need and to take responsabiltiy for your own education and direction. AL of the mentioned schools have some excellent faculty and even at a state shool, if you make yourself stick out from the crowd, you can get a fine education. (In case you are curious, I am an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin @ Madision.)
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thread is built on a misconception. Modern Java VMs, such has Sun's HotSpot on Windows or IBM's 1.1.8, produce code that is as fast or faster then that produced by static compilers. Some things to understand: (1) Java code IS compiled. Its just compiled at run-time rather then build-time. The result is the same however-- machine code running on your machine. (2) JITs have a number of advantages over static compilers: (a) A static compiler must compile for a lowest common denominator platform (typicly Pentium). A JIT can determine the processor type at run-time and produce processor-tuned code. (b) A static compiler must "guess safe" in situations where code is ambiguous. A JIT can go ahead and take risky optimizations because it can un-optimize if the need arises. One place this occurs a lot is in in- lining. The static compiler can only safely in-line finals. The JIT can try to in-line anything and adjust by how the code actually gets used. (HotSpot calls this "agressive inlining" and you can read about it at the HotSpot section of java.sun.com) Simple fact. For raw computation that doesn't incurr array bounds checking, Java is as fast or faster today then C/C++. (And static compiling doesn't help you with the bounds checking penalty.) There are some actual experiemntal numbers and a chapter discussing this and other Java v. native code issues in "Java(tm) Platform performance: Strategies and tctics" coming out at JavaOne. (Its already up for pre-order at amazon...)
I hear a variety of views expressed here that are worth sorting out.
(1) Hey its MY copy so I'm not depriving anyone of anything.
Utter nonsense. This shows a total disregard for the artists right to be compensated for his or her efforts-- a right gauranteed under Copyright law. Consider this, copyright law was created to encourage the creation of artistic works by professional artists. Without copyright law there would BE no Metallic, Star Wars or any other work of artistic expression made by full time artists. They'd all have to get "real jobs" producing physical and thus un-copyable products.
Is that the world you really want to live in?
(2) MP3s encourage record sales.
This may in fact be true, but it has the same flaw as the next argument, so I'll adress them together.
(3) There should be a "better way" for artists to make money.
Both of these arguments deny the artist the right to decide how they wish to be compensated for their work. If you really HAVE a better way then I'm sure at least some will be happy to listen but its THEIR decision.
I may think theres a better way for YOU to earn your money. I might think you'ld be better off digging ditches, but I DONT have the right to MAKE you do so.
And in the end this IS what this is about, an artists right to control their work and decide how they want to be compensated and if they want to be compensated.
Oh I left one argument for last 'cause its just basicly dumb...
(4) The artist released their work to the public.
No they didn't. Thats called "Public Domain". An artist CAN decided to release their work to the public domain but noone does-- not even Stahlman. If he did he couldn't enforce a license argeement, ergo no GPL.
Even Stahlman, at the end, DEPENDS on Copyright laws to allow him to see that his work is used as he wishes it used. And I don't see anyone at Slashdot attacking the GPL....
I won't even justify the wordgames over "theft" by calling it an argument. At best its sophistry.
I hear a variety of views expressed here that are worth sorting out. (1) Hey its MY copy so I'm not depriving anyoen of anything. Utter nonsense. This shows a total disregard for the artists right to be comepnsate for his or her efforts-- a right gauranteed under Copyright law. Consider this, copyright law was created to encourage the creation of artistic rowks by p[rofessionala rtists. Withotu copyright law there would BE no Metallic, Star Wars or any other work of artistic expression amde by full time artists. They'd all have to get "real jobs" producing physical and thus un-copyable products. Is that the world you really want to live in? (2) MP3s encourage record sales. This may in fact be true, but it ahs the same flaw as the next argument, so I'll adres them together. (3) There shodul be a "better way" for artists to make money. Both of these arguments deny the artist the right to decide how they wish to be comepnsated for their work. If you really HAVE a better way then I'm sure at least some will be happy to listen but its THEIR decision. I may think theres a better way for YOu to earn your money. I might think you'ld be better off digging ditches, but I DONT have the right to MAKE you do so. And in teh end this IS what this is about, an artists right to control their work and decide how theyw ant to be comepnsated and if they want to be compensated. Oh I left one argumetn for last c'ause its just basicly dumb... (4) The arist released their work to the public. No they didn't. Thats called "OPublic Domain". Abn artist CAN decided to release their work to the public domain but nooen does-- not even Stahlman. If he did he couldn't enforce a license argeement, ergo no GPL. Even Stahlman, at the end, DEPENDS on Copyright laws to allow him to see that his work is used as he wishes it used. And I don't see anyone at Slashdot attacking the GPL....
+++
Please name one jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, in which copyright violation is covered under theft laws
+++
Please name one jurisdiction that has "theft" laws by your defintion. There are none. Its called "larceny" under the law.
Theft is a common term and applies to copyright infringement as well as grand larceny. Ever heard of "theft of service"? That doesn't invovlve a physical piece of property, either.
Can we now stop playing STUPID semantic games? If you copy copyrighted materials to which you do not own the copyrights, you are a crook illegaliy depriving the author of their rights to their creation.
What kind of crook you call it is totally a red herring and smacks of fundamentalist word-games.
+++ Please name one jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, in which copyright violation is covered under theft laws +++ Please name one jurisdiction thats has "theft" laws by your defintion. There are none. Its called "larceny" under the law. Theft is a common term and applies to copyright infringement as well as grand larcenary. Can we now stop playing STUPID semantic games? If you copy copyrighted materails to which you do not own the copyrights, you are a crook. What kind of crook is totally a red herring.
+++
What I did when I read this is think about what affect this wide spread "free" distribution of music has done for me. What I quickly figured out is that it significantly expanded the range of music I listen to and got me to buy a couple different albums. Including a Metallica album
++++
This is a totally differnt arguemnt, and one that POTENTIALLY respects the authors rights to compensation for their work.
I say potentially because, in order to be real respect, you have to give the author the right to opt in or out.
I think a good case can be made that programs like Napster and gnutella can perfrom the same functions as the radio stations, whcih yes is to advertise the music. In order to be successful though it will have to be somethign the artists can feel comfortable about. Based on the radio model I see the following things needed.
(1) MOST of all that contingent proposing this MUST get themselves distanced from the choldren who just think they shouldnt have to pay for anything they can invisibly steal. As long as these two arguments are always uttered in the same breath the secodn will get no where.
(2) Some kind of limit has to be built in to prevent playing an entie albumn, or even one side of an album. There is a strict agreement betwen the radio stations and the record companies that this is not done. This agreement keeps the record industry comfortable that thsoe who like the music have a reason to go out and buy the albumn.
Its worth noting that a number of free and partially free distribution schemes were tried in the shareware community. Giving it all away and asking for a volutary donation produced virtually no revenue. Simialrly, giving almost nthoiing and asking for apyment for the rest produced very little revenue. Waht finally worked was about a 50/50 split where the user got the first 50% of the experience for free but had to pony up for the rest. It was this formula that made ID rich.
(Clean copy)
++++
Face facts, people: copying is not stealing. If you steal something from me you deprive me of its use - I no longer have it. If you copy a song I write and record, I still "have" the song as much as I ever did.
++++
Simplsitic, juvenlie, and wrong.
When you steal a candy bar do you deprive anyone of a candy bar? No, in today's mechanized society there is effectively an infinite supply of candy bars. All you have deprived someone of is their right to be compensated for the work put into making that candy bar.
Our economy as much about labor as it is about labor. The concept of intellectual property was designed to promote the creation of abstract things like the books you read, the movies you watch, and yes the music you listen to.
What do you think "Copyright" means? Literally it means "the right to copy." Withotu contro lof that right an author can have no value from his or her work, and therefor cannto put value such as his or her time and energy INTO that work.
>> flame warning
When you tell your boss you don't want a paycheck, come bsck and tell us you think others labors should be free. At that point, you might be a revolutionary. Until then the original poster is right and you and all others who make this nosnense argument are just spoliled, ill socialized children trying to justify stealing a candy bar.
flame off
The difference between socialism and theft is whether you give up what YOU posess before asking others to do the same.
++++ Face facts, people: copying is not stealing. If you steal something from me you deprive me of its use - I no longer have it. If you copy a song I write and record, I still "have" the song as much as I ever did. ++++ Simplsitic, juvenlie, and wrong. When you steal a candy bar do you deprive anyone of a candy bar? No, there is effectively an infinite supply of candy bars. All you have deprived someoen of is their right to by compensated for the work ptu into makign thatc andy bar. Our economy is not about property as muchas it is about labor. The concept of intellectual property was designed to promote the creation of abstract things like the books you read, the movies you watch, and yes the music you lsiten to. What do you think "Copyright" means? Literally it means "the right to copy." Withotu contro lof that right an author can have no value from his ro her work, and therefor cannto put value such as his or her time and energy INTO that work. When you tell your boss you don't want a paycheck, coem abck and tell us you think others labors should be free. At that point, you might be a revoltionary. The defference between socialism and theft is whether you give up what YOU posess before asking others to do the same. The origanal poster is right... grow up, read up, and learn something.
But I disagree 100% with thsi statement:
"Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet. "
I think in fact this is GOOD for a barrier free inetrnet. A true medium for the open exchange of ideas can only exist in an atmosphere of respect for intellectual property. This includes properly compensating a cretoir for their work in the amnner they wish to be comepnsated.
Copyright law isn't some underhanded scheme to dprive you of your rights. It was created to foster the creation of intellectual property and to allow for professional creators thereof.
Free music means no commercial music. Think carefully about what a world will be like when Metallcia, or Billy joel, or Wierd Al, or whomever you enjoy has to go do something else to make a living...
What I personally find disengenous is that the champions of free intelelctual property by and large are totally consumers, not creators. Maybe THEY should stop getting apid for whatever it is THEY do to pay the bills...
Okay, flame away. I know this isn't the invouge Slashdot opinion and its a reality a lot of people don't want to hear.
And though I don't remmeber him specificly saying "we're not supporting the PC anymore" he did go into great length about how it was impossible to break into a market that MS controls with such a stranglehold and that theyw ere giving that arget up in favor of the embedded appliance market.
:)
I geuss the question is, how much effort (read money) are they going to put into supporting a platform they have given up as a revenue source? I can see them tracking the developments where they port witha recompile but I can't imagiena lot of PC specific development.
Its too bad too, becauser IMO "Free BeOs" was exactly the strategy they needed to become 'another Linux'.
Atl east the free BeOs site is still up
lol. I liked your secodn coming comment. Its not unusual for the masses to trat any new branch of science as magic. Look back at all the crazy ads for devices that used "the wonders of electrical ebnergy" in the 1900s. Myth making is what humans do when they can't understand soemthing or don't want to be btohered with the effort it wil ltake to reach that understanding.
This makes NO sense at all. Thsi is a fancy way of describing magic-- attemmpting to maniupalte an object (the particle) by manipualting its referrent (a thought abotu the aprticle.) That thought is something totally speerate and distinct form the aprticle itself with no connection in ANY realm, sub-atomic or otherwise. Besides, even if it DID make any physcis sense (which it doesn't) the act of MEASURING that change itself would influence the particle far beyond the effect being measured thus losing your data. Total psuedo-science hogwash. Either someone has doen the usual nonsense of attaching a "respected name" to trash to give it an air of validity (most likely)OR someone totally misunderstood a patent they were reading. Isn't misinformation net-style fun?
Are they dead? probably. Would I buy a product with them ober oen withotu them? Absolutely. Prinetd mnauals are a necessity to me. I have to take these PDFs out and have them printed and bound at Kinkos these days which costs me another $20- $50 dependign on the size of the book. Frankly I resent that because its not like the software has gotten any cheaper.
This was my business (engineering on-line networked games on the internet) a job ago so let me set you straight. "Speed" is a much abused term. It can refer to Bandwidth, Latency, cxonnect time, or any combination thereof. Geosynchronous orbit is VERY high up. The speed of light believe it or not is your limiting factor. Bouncing a singal off a geosynch satellite takes a LONG time in terms of ping/latency times. This is unavoidable by this century's understanding of physics. Speed of light is fixed. Satellite commuicatio nis genreally high bandwidth, and "always on" thus low conenct time, but latency is bad. When they talk about "analog modems" its kidn of a straw man. Analog modems are old, bad technology. They will beat a stellite in tyerms of "normal" latency BUT they are prone to latency spikes from the "retrain" when they have trouble with the line that can be as large as 6 seconds. Theya re also very slow to connect. Analog mdoems though are goign out of service fast. The currently expanding technologies are xDSL and Cable Modem. Both are always on and low latency (much lower then a satellite can possibly be)but they do not have the kind of bandwidth a staellite can potentailly pump at you. Hope that answers your questions
There's an age old truth in writing.
If you can't say it in plain english then you really don't know what you are talking about.
I learned this from my parents. The authors of over 50 books and uncounted hundreds of magazine articles. (They also taught professional writing at the UW-Madison extension for many years.)
gives a wonderful lecture that starts with the staement "Science runs on incompetance."
And yes, he is a scientist-- a systems-science approach botanist.
Ironicly, after showing how the scientific structures basically prevent most truely new dieas from gaining the wide audiance the need for acceptance, he concluded with the observation that this is necessary. Withotu such constraints science would be TOO creative and nothing woudl get explored in depth.
A moment of philosophy:
The world is what it is and is ultimately unmeasurable by us in any direct way. All we have are the inputs of our flawed senses and the arbitrary pattern matchign of our intellect. We are model builders and not Truth finders. Truth is unacessible.
What's left to judge our models by are just the dual criteria of utility and esthetics. (Predictive cability is a utility measure. Occam's razor is an esthetic measure.) All real scientists know this, unfortunately they usually aren't terribly good at communciating this to the common man.
Actually, it was bio-genocide.
If you didn't know this, buy and read "Bury my heart at wounded knee."
Responsability requires accountability.
Accountabiltiy requries some form of non-forgible identity.
These are lessons al llearned early in the online games industry. Why do you think you need to buy an Everquest box to play everquest? for the revenue? Not particualrly, the box sales rvenue is dwarfed by the monthly recurring revenue from subscription.
The reason is attach a significant cost (you $50 to $60) to having to create a new identity. Your identity being the key-code shipepd in the box. This makes the threat of ostracism real adn th threat of ostracism is traditionally what keeps communities functioning.
Okay, I know this reality of life won't be popular with at least one slashdot contingent, so let the flames begin.
This study does not measure what people do.
It measures what they PURPORT they MIGHT do when questioned on their activities by an authority figure. (the researcher.) Anyone who knows anything about building social psychology studies would dismiss this out of hand.
I will say this for the reference. My wife just finished taking Psychological Research Methods in college. This pointer should be a great one for her ex-TA to play "whats wrong with this study" with.
that I've heard for a long time....
"They are also a reminder not always to believe what you read. (Read more).
According to the January issue of American Demographics..."
An excelent discussion. It should be noted though that large companies by and large don't count on their lawyer-head-count to protect themselves from infringement clamins.
Instead, large software companies build libraries of software patents of their own. Should anyone attempt to sue them, the immediately go through their own library and this company's products looking for the almost inevitable counter-claim. they then play "I won't sue you if you don't sue me."
IMO this leads to an interesting area of supposition. Suppsoe one of these large companies wants to shut down a garage shop. What recourse does the garage shop have? Certainly they can't play the big boys' game.
This is the single msot damaging part of the idea of software patents as applied to the american software industry, IMO. We get our vitality msotly from the small independnat developers and they can all potentailly be run out of business with this stuff.
How then do we protect them? One answer would be to allow them to play the same game the big boys do. This would take the form of a patent trust, administered by some industry recognized neutral party, perhapse the EFF or someone similar. An individual developer or company could become a member of the trust and gain access to its patent library in return for agreeing to an unconditional license of its own patents to all other trust members. In addition the trust would have to be granted the right to sue others for infringement of any of those patents.
This would give small and large developers alike an equal patent library upon the strength of which to safely develop.
Anyway, its a thought...
An excelent discussion. It should be noted though that large companies by and large don't count on their lawyer-head-count to protect themselves from infringement clamins. Instead, large software companies build libraries of software patents of their own. Should anyone attempt to sue them, the immediately go through their own library and this company's products looking for the almost inevitable counter-claim. they then play "I won't sue you if you don't sue me." IMO this leads to an interesting area of supposition. Suppsoe one of these large companies wants to shut down a garage shop. What recourse does the garage shop have? Certainly they can't play the big boys' game. This is the single msot damaging part of the idea of software patents as applied to the american software industry, IMO. We get our vitality msotly from the small independnat developers and they can all potentailly be run out of business with this stuff. How then do we protect them? One answer would be to allow them to play the same game the big boys do. This would take the form of a patent trust, administered by some industry recognized neutral party, perhapse the EFF or someone similar. An individual developer or company could become a member of the trust and gain access to its patent library in return for agreeing to an unconditional license of its own patents to all other trust members. In addition the trust would have to be granted the right to sue others for infringement of any of those patents. This would give small and large developers alike an equal patent library upon the strength of which to safely develop. Anyway, its a thought...
I don't knwo if this woudl count as "unreasonable".. certainly its not as bad as the 1 click shopping or the famous Xor-d cursor BUT
The LZW patent has certainly been routinely enforced to the egneral discomfort of a segment of the industry. The one, to my mind, brinsg up two issues-- one is the issue of true invention v. just the application of standard industry problem solving approahes to a new area. The other is the question of where "software algorithym" ends and "natural law" begins. (Mathematical formulae are not patentable traditionally, as I understand it, because theya re not seen as invention but merely discovery of existing natural laws. Most software algortihms really aren't very far from mathematical fomulae...)
The real issue here is that the courts came up with a highly questionable interpretation of the law when they said that domain names were not protected by trademark. (If you are going to argue with me, please read up first on what a trademark is, why it is granted, and what consitutes infringement. If you do so, you may find you really don't have any disagreement.)
When congress disagrees with the way the courts interpret a law it is their duty to enact new legislation that makes the intent of the laws clearer to the courts.
This is our system in action, no more and no less.
JK
As otehrs have mentioned, what you are describing soudsn like a tech or trade school (associate degree) not a computer science degree. Computer Science will not teach you much in the way of specific languages, operating systems, or tools. This would be fairly useless as it would be out of date by the tiem you garduated and down rigth obsolete within your first 10 yearsi n the industry. Computer Science WILL teach you what a language, operating systemn or application truely is. It will teach you the ideas and techniques that go into designing computer software technology. This will not only teach you how you mgiht write your own lanaguages or operating systems but, criticly, give you the tools to understand quickly new developments in the field as they arise. This is the difference between a programmer and a software engineer, and is like the difference between a mechanic and an automotive designer. If you WANT to be just a programmer then skip college, do a tech school, and start getting industry experience. If you want to work at the top of the industry and one the msot intrestin things, go to a good Computer Science college and study software engineering. Among the top computer science schools at least used to be: MIT, Cal-Tech, Stanford, University of California @ Berkely, University of Wisconsin @ Madision. The first three are private schools. They are very hard to get into and very expensive, but they give their students the msot support and encouragement. If you are a really fine student sometimes they will help with the costs. The last 2 are state universities. They are easier to get into and cost less but they are factories and, because they let so many mroe students in, actively try to fail students out. If you go to a state school, be prepared to actively fight to get the classes you need and to take responsabiltiy for your own education and direction. AL of the mentioned schools have some excellent faculty and even at a state shool, if you make yourself stick out from the crowd, you can get a fine education. (In case you are curious, I am an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin @ Madision.)