Drugs? I don't do drugs. If everone would just eat their vegetables, take some vitamins, and go for a half hour walk each day, the entire drug cartel would collapse.
Before you start calling me naive and/or stupid, I'd just like to say that I was suffering from widespread allergies and pretty major gastric problems, and I recovered. No drugs. Natural medicine.
Patents and all intellectual property needs to be abolished. I won't go into why right now, but later. I'm talking copyright, trademarks, all patents, all software licenses, including the GPL.
> commercial software companies shouldn't be demonized for having a different business model.
Of course not. Commercial software companies should be demonized for pushing "intellectual propertry" at the expense of intellectual freedom, and for censoring their critics with copyright law, and for covering mathematical algorithms with patent law, and for sueing anyone who gets in their precious way.
Commercial software companies should be demonized for all sorts of more reasons, but not because of their different business model. Even Red Hat writes software and sells it. That's perfectly respectable.
I've seen both, and thought about it hard, and I still like the idea of thinking machines. Of course it should be done carefully - linking a thinking computer into NORAD was terrifically stupid, and giving one the ability to space its astronauts wasn't a great idea, either.
The lesson I learned from T2 & 2001 is, invent the machines, but do it *carefully*. Stupidity is God's only capital crime.
"have nominated L. Neil Smith, a science-fiction writer. That'll sure help their credibility, eh?"
I'd vote for David Brin, Larry Niven, or Mike Flynn, or if they were still alive, Robert Heinlein. Any real SF writer has my vote over any of the current politicians in the ring. Yeah, 90% of SF is junk, of course it is. 90% of everything is junk.
"The dynamics is quite complicated, so if you are
far enough away, then you can run away from
Earth due to gravitational effects (IIRC that's
what's happening to Moon, sloowly)."
Yes, but you have to be already further out than geostationary orbit, and quite massive to do that - massive enough to cause significant tidal bulges on the Earth which then revolve around the Earth faster than you do, so the bulges tug you forward, and out.
I want to see what happens when you have a double planet where both planets are spinning rather quickly and both are orbiting outside each other's geostationary radius. Wouldn't they recede from each other very quickly?
What if you have two planets orbiting each other, one rotating slowly, the other quickly, so A is inside B's geostationary radius, but B is outside A's? Seems to me the orbit would stay pretty much the same, but the faster spinning planet would transfer some of its rotational momentum to the other planet? Might that be what the Earth and Moon were like long ago?
Sloppy is right. Planes crash when destroyed because the pieces are still heavy and no longer generate lift. Satilites are already in freefall - they don't crash when destroyed, they just scatter themselves into shrapnel that stays in orbit for a long time.
Does EvilMegaCorp have a duty to release the source to their program? Let them make their programs closed, and we will make ours open, and better. When they "steal" our code, we will make more. If open source can't compete with closed source, then open source deserves to be extinct - but no worries, open source will compete just fine.
Information is owned by anyone who knows it or has a copy somewhere. Intelluctual Property is an oxymoron.
Because the internet connection at the library doesn't belong to the goverment, it belongs to the people of the United States. It's our tax money, we should control what happens to it. We don't believe in censorship, so our tax money shouldn't support it. I see your point, and I gotta think you're right.
I guess it all boils down to the trouble with taxes, doesn't it? The goverment is supposed to take a small cut of money from everyone, and see that money gets put into the public good. The problem is, the money gets put into whatever causes are popular with the vocal minorities, not towards the public good.
I like your analogy about bookstores. The problem is, there are people who actually want censorware installed on net connections. It's their tax money, too. Do we simply assume that we're right and they're wrong so the goverment should listen to us? Isn't it their country, too, and they should get what they want, as long as there's more of them than there are of us? FWIW, I agree, the Constitution is on your side, but I despair of the goverment actually following it anymore.
Bookstores, huh? Interesting... suppose there were 3 bookstores in town. One provided unfiltered internet connections. Another provided filtered internet connections. Another just put the money towards more books. I'd visit libraries 1&3, personally. We could control where our money went, and this whole issue of what the goverment does with our taxes would be a non-problem. Trouble with that idea is, what about poor people who can't afford books? Well, the local Barnes & Noble lets me sit around in a chair for hours, sampling their books, in the hope that I'll find something I just gotta have. Any wise bookstore would let people read like that, because those people, if their situation improves, will be their best customers.
Yeah, sidewalks are probably best built by goverments.:) But despite my deep love for public libraries, I gotta admit it might be better if they didn't exist. Then we can pay for whatever we choose to. Some of my best times were spent in little, hole-in-the-wall, used bookstores.
"Libraries are supposed to provide information and entertainment. They get my money, out of my paycheck, to do that. They are not supposed to use that money to restrict information and entertainment."
I now agree with you. As long as public libraries exist, they should not be censoring anything. If any internet connection they have must be filtered, they should put the money towards books, instead. Filtered internet is worse than no internet.
"While I'm tempted to make a comment about going from no sidewalks to censored-sidewalks, I won't.:)"
"Someone could write a mp3 --> wav --> vorbis script I guess that would recursively scan a folder and convert all mp3 files in sight, but why would you want to do this?"
Same reason we turn wavs into mp3s - to decrease the file size. And the ogg encoder can encode straight from mp3 files, so no need for the extra step.
"even if it sounded 10x better than an MP3, it'd still be absolutely pointless to convert an MP3, an already degraded sound, into another format."
It's not just the sound quality. It's also file size and bandwidth. If OGG was 10x better per byte than MP3, you could compress your 10 gig collection of mp3s into 1 gig of OGGs, without losing much quality at all.
I oversimplified it, but I trust my point is clear?
I can just imagine colleges begging their students to use OGG because it doesn't kill their servers so badly. Probably won't happen much, but it's fun to imagine.:)
DavidTC, I have to admit I don't understand what you are saying. I realize you are mocking me, telling my my opinion is ridiculus. What I don't understand is what do you believe?
I've gone to your user info page, and I've read everything you've said in this discussion. You mock people, and never give any detail about what you believe. You speak in short paragraphs that are easy to misunderstand.
I believe that for a library to go from no-internet-connection to a censored-internet-connection is an improvement. Yes, it'd be far better if it was uncensored, but it's better than nothing. The library is being generous to provide the connection in the first place.
"You're not going to make enough money with one industry to support two industries, unless you jack up the prices in that one. You want to pay $5 for a blank CD or $2000 for a low end stereo?"
As long as there's a healthy amount of competition, the prices will be limited to something reasonable. I've heard, though, that RIAA members already have a huge stake in audio and music hardware. They took my suggestion years ago.
Your other two points I addressed in my post to sheldon.
"Music production costs money. We all accept this as fact, the cost of the musicians, the studio time, the editing, hardware, and the donuts and coffee."
Granted, I don't know much about making music, but who says the band has to buy hardware? Hardware's expensive, costs roughly the same amount no matter how much or little you use it, and it needs upgraded and replaced from time to time. It's a big investment. Why don't bands that already have hardware, but aren't successful, just start teaming up with other bands? They let these other bands rent/share their hardware, and they use the money for food, rent, upkeep of the hardware, etc...
There are ways to make making music cost less. Not zero, but it doesn't have to cost as much as it does now.
"Ok, so how do they make money?"
Playing gigs at clubs, concerts, micropayments, product endorsements, Bruce Perens' Street Preformer Protocol, selling cds on mp3.com or their own websites, banner ads, etc...
"You are claiming that distribution should be free. Why? Without making the money in the distribution channel there will be no incentive to produce the music to begin with."
Thousands of amateur and professional programmers donate their spare time to help open source projects that will probably pay them no money. Why? Where's the motivation? Programming and writing music aren't the same, but they are both art that takes a lot of skill, and they are similar. Both also require large upfront investments in hardware, and years of practice to get good.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that these programmers are not paid for their amazing work. I'm saying that even without the lure of great gobs of money, the artists and musicians will still produce music.
"I have a hard time stomaching people who enjoy something, but are unwilling to compensate for their use of it."
I used to buy cds all the time, from any place I saw them. Shortly after getting my hundredth cd, at an average cost of $10-$15, I learned about the RIAA, and since have refused to give them one penny. I still buy used cds, since the RIAA doesn't benefit from that. I'm willing to pay quite a bit of money for my music. Money is not the issue. The issue is freedom.
I never said that music should be free beer. I said music should be free speech.
Of course music costs money to make. Music isn't free beer. It is, however, free speech. Bootleggers and copyright "pirates" have known this all along. Yes, it's illegal, but only because that specific law, in this case, is wrong.
Music creation costs money - usually the artist pays for it, and he is paid either by the publisher or the fans. Music distribution costs money, however, the publishers and artists don't need to spend a thing on distribution, once it's out there. The fans will distribute the music to the rest of the fans, and they all will pay for the music in small, different ways. Bandwidth, blank tapes, cdrs, headphones, expensive stereos, good speakers, etc... if the RIAA wants to make money honestly off music, it should buy stock in the music hardware companies... but for all I know, they've probably already done that.
Music's best distribution channel has always been, is, and always will be the fans that give the music value in the first place. Music is just sound, just noise, just bits on a disc, scratches on a piece of vinyl. It has value to the artist, who put his love into creating it, and the fans, that put their love into collecting it. Music does not belong to the publishers, and it never has.
Fans create distribution channels for their favorite music, fan-run websites and magazines, newsgroups where they talk about and trade the latest songs and news, websites to collect lyrics to their favorite songs, etc...
I pay money for music. I go to the The Record Exchange down the street, and buy/trade/sell great piles of music, I'm quite popular there, actually. I pay money for music in the bandwidth I spend downloading music from napster. I'll pay quite a lot of money for music, but not one penny goes to the RIAA.
I have no right to free beer music. I have every right to free speech music.
Actually, that's not analagous. We have lots of ways to get online, other than through a library. We have college networks, internet connections at work, private isps, and companies like AOL and Compuserve, not to mention BBS's.
All sidewalks belong to the government. The government is required to allow free speech in public. Not that it always does, but that's rather offtopic.:) The government has that extra responsibility, because it has a monopoly - there are no other ways to walk around.
They are completely different. Would you prefer we have privately owned streets and sidewalks, ala Snow Crash? Because that's exactly how isps are now. Maybe it would be better, I don't know.
It's only censorship if you are forcing it on someone. Making filtered internet connections availiable at the library isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's providing a service, not taking away a right. Where does the constitution promise us free web access?
Yes, there's a difference. The reason is, people still have a choice - they can get their internet service from someone else.
The other reason is that Chebucto Freenet is doing this out of their own free will. They are not being bullied by corporate lawyers/extortioners, patent protection rackets, large multinational copyright-holding industries or the local orwellian goverment.
There is plenty of censorship going on in the world, but this is not censorship. Unless someone from Chebucto Freenet would care to correct me?
Aye - FWIW, I'm 100% behind ya. It is not censorship to provide one thing, and not another. It is censorship to prevent someone else from providing it. IMHO, that definition of censorship cuts through most of the silliness on the subject that I've seen.
That's one reason I'm not bothered when a local library decides to install filters. Their connection, their choice. When a goverment agency mandates filters in all libraries - well, that stinks, but I'm not sure whether it's censorship or not because arguably, the public libraries belong to the goverment. When a goverment makes private isp's install filters, that's plain and simple censorship.
Re:Mozilla - please use tar correctly!!!!
on
Mozilla M17 Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I would say mozilla-M17, then make a link to it through mozilla, and tell everything to use the mozilla path, like the linux source tree.
> It's only the accutely paranoid that would think that they would go after MP3.com and others who are distributing some arists' songs WITH their permision...
Slashdot Mirror
Drugs? I don't do drugs. If everone would just eat their vegetables, take some vitamins, and go for a half hour walk each day, the entire drug cartel would collapse.
Before you start calling me naive and/or stupid, I'd just like to say that I was suffering from widespread allergies and pretty major gastric problems, and I recovered. No drugs. Natural medicine.
Patents and all intellectual property needs to be abolished. I won't go into why right now, but later. I'm talking copyright, trademarks, all patents, all software licenses, including the GPL.
I feel for you. I just quit watching TV when it got too bad. You know something? I don't miss it.
I'll still rent a movie now and then, but I don't watch TV, and I don't see near so many ads.
> commercial software companies shouldn't be demonized for having a different business model.
Of course not. Commercial software companies should be demonized for pushing "intellectual propertry" at the expense of intellectual freedom, and for censoring their critics with copyright law, and for covering mathematical algorithms with patent law, and for sueing anyone who gets in their precious way.
Commercial software companies should be demonized for all sorts of more reasons, but not because of their different business model. Even Red Hat writes software and sells it. That's perfectly respectable.
Dr Bussard's improved version of the Farnsworth Fusor - check it out.
You want someone to blame, someone to sue? I'm sure you didn't actually mean that, but it sure sounds like that's what you meant.
I've seen both, and thought about it hard, and I still like the idea of thinking machines. Of course it should be done carefully - linking a thinking computer into NORAD was terrifically stupid, and giving one the ability to space its astronauts wasn't a great idea, either.
The lesson I learned from T2 & 2001 is, invent the machines, but do it *carefully*. Stupidity is God's only capital crime.
"have nominated L. Neil Smith, a science-fiction writer. That'll sure help their credibility, eh?"
I'd vote for David Brin, Larry Niven, or Mike Flynn, or if they were still alive, Robert Heinlein. Any real SF writer has my vote over any of the current politicians in the ring. Yeah, 90% of SF is junk, of course it is. 90% of everything is junk.
"The dynamics is quite complicated, so if you are
far enough away, then you can run away from
Earth due to gravitational effects (IIRC that's
what's happening to Moon, sloowly)."
Yes, but you have to be already further out than geostationary orbit, and quite massive to do that - massive enough to cause significant tidal bulges on the Earth which then revolve around the Earth faster than you do, so the bulges tug you forward, and out.
I want to see what happens when you have a double planet where both planets are spinning rather quickly and both are orbiting outside each other's geostationary radius. Wouldn't they recede from each other very quickly?
What if you have two planets orbiting each other, one rotating slowly, the other quickly, so A is inside B's geostationary radius, but B is outside A's? Seems to me the orbit would stay pretty much the same, but the faster spinning planet would transfer some of its rotational momentum to the other planet? Might that be what the Earth and Moon were like long ago?
Sloppy is right. Planes crash when destroyed because the pieces are still heavy and no longer generate lift. Satilites are already in freefall - they don't crash when destroyed, they just scatter themselves into shrapnel that stays in orbit for a long time.
Does EvilMegaCorp have a duty to release the source to their program? Let them make their programs closed, and we will make ours open, and better. When they "steal" our code, we will make more. If open source can't compete with closed source, then open source deserves to be extinct - but no worries, open source will compete just fine.
Information is owned by anyone who knows it or has a copy somewhere. Intelluctual Property is an oxymoron.
Without copyright on software, the GPL would not be needed.
ROFL
:)
I love your sig.
Red Green fans seem rather rare around here, yes? Pity...
Okay, I gotta start previewing... libries 1&3? I meant bookstores 1&3.
Because the internet connection at the library doesn't belong to the goverment, it belongs to the people of the United States. It's our tax money, we should control what happens to it. We don't believe in censorship, so our tax money shouldn't support it. I see your point, and I gotta think you're right.
:) But despite my deep love for public libraries, I gotta admit it might be better if they didn't exist. Then we can pay for whatever we choose to. Some of my best times were spent in little, hole-in-the-wall, used bookstores.
:)"
:)
I guess it all boils down to the trouble with taxes, doesn't it? The goverment is supposed to take a small cut of money from everyone, and see that money gets put into the public good. The problem is, the money gets put into whatever causes are popular with the vocal minorities, not towards the public good.
I like your analogy about bookstores. The problem is, there are people who actually want censorware installed on net connections. It's their tax money, too. Do we simply assume that we're right and they're wrong so the goverment should listen to us? Isn't it their country, too, and they should get what they want, as long as there's more of them than there are of us? FWIW, I agree, the Constitution is on your side, but I despair of the goverment actually following it anymore.
Bookstores, huh? Interesting... suppose there were 3 bookstores in town. One provided unfiltered internet connections. Another provided filtered internet connections. Another just put the money towards more books. I'd visit libraries 1&3, personally. We could control where our money went, and this whole issue of what the goverment does with our taxes would be a non-problem. Trouble with that idea is, what about poor people who can't afford books? Well, the local Barnes & Noble lets me sit around in a chair for hours, sampling their books, in the hope that I'll find something I just gotta have. Any wise bookstore would let people read like that, because those people, if their situation improves, will be their best customers.
Yeah, sidewalks are probably best built by goverments.
"Libraries are supposed to provide information and entertainment. They get my money, out of my paycheck, to do that. They are not supposed to use that money to restrict information and entertainment."
I now agree with you. As long as public libraries exist, they should not be censoring anything. If any internet connection they have must be filtered, they should put the money towards books, instead. Filtered internet is worse than no internet.
"While I'm tempted to make a comment about going from no sidewalks to censored-sidewalks, I won't.
Thanks for the serious reply.
"Someone could write a mp3 --> wav --> vorbis script I guess that would recursively scan a folder and convert all mp3 files in sight, but why would you want to do this?"
Same reason we turn wavs into mp3s - to decrease the file size. And the ogg encoder can encode straight from mp3 files, so no need for the extra step.
"even if it sounded 10x better than an MP3, it'd still be absolutely pointless to convert an MP3, an already degraded sound, into another format."
:)
It's not just the sound quality. It's also file size and bandwidth. If OGG was 10x better per byte than MP3, you could compress your 10 gig collection of mp3s into 1 gig of OGGs, without losing much quality at all.
I oversimplified it, but I trust my point is clear?
I can just imagine colleges begging their students to use OGG because it doesn't kill their servers so badly. Probably won't happen much, but it's fun to imagine.
DavidTC, I have to admit I don't understand what you are saying. I realize you are mocking me, telling my my opinion is ridiculus. What I don't understand is what do you believe?
I've gone to your user info page, and I've read everything you've said in this discussion. You mock people, and never give any detail about what you believe. You speak in short paragraphs that are easy to misunderstand.
I believe that for a library to go from no-internet-connection to a censored-internet-connection is an improvement. Yes, it'd be far better if it was uncensored, but it's better than nothing. The library is being generous to provide the connection in the first place.
"You're not going to make enough money with one industry to support two industries, unless you jack up the prices in that one. You want to pay $5 for a blank CD or $2000 for a low end stereo?"
As long as there's a healthy amount of competition, the prices will be limited to something reasonable. I've heard, though, that RIAA members already have a huge stake in audio and music hardware. They took my suggestion years ago.
Your other two points I addressed in my post to sheldon.
"Music production costs money. We all accept this as fact, the cost of the musicians, the studio time, the editing, hardware, and the donuts and coffee."
Granted, I don't know much about making music, but who says the band has to buy hardware? Hardware's expensive, costs roughly the same amount no matter how much or little you use it, and it needs upgraded and replaced from time to time. It's a big investment. Why don't bands that already have hardware, but aren't successful, just start teaming up with other bands? They let these other bands rent/share their hardware, and they use the money for food, rent, upkeep of the hardware, etc...
There are ways to make making music cost less. Not zero, but it doesn't have to cost as much as it does now.
"Ok, so how do they make money?"
Playing gigs at clubs, concerts, micropayments, product endorsements, Bruce Perens' Street Preformer Protocol, selling cds on mp3.com or their own websites, banner ads, etc...
"You are claiming that distribution should be free. Why? Without making the money in the distribution channel there will be no incentive to produce the music to begin with."
Thousands of amateur and professional programmers donate their spare time to help open source projects that will probably pay them no money. Why? Where's the motivation? Programming and writing music aren't the same, but they are both art that takes a lot of skill, and they are similar. Both also require large upfront investments in hardware, and years of practice to get good.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that these programmers are not paid for their amazing work. I'm saying that even without the lure of great gobs of money, the artists and musicians will still produce music.
"I have a hard time stomaching people who enjoy something, but are unwilling to compensate for their use of it."
I used to buy cds all the time, from any place I saw them. Shortly after getting my hundredth cd, at an average cost of $10-$15, I learned about the RIAA, and since have refused to give them one penny. I still buy used cds, since the RIAA doesn't benefit from that. I'm willing to pay quite a bit of money for my music. Money is not the issue. The issue is freedom.
I never said that music should be free beer. I said music should be free speech.
Of course music costs money to make. Music isn't free beer. It is, however, free speech. Bootleggers and copyright "pirates" have known this all along. Yes, it's illegal, but only because that specific law, in this case, is wrong.
Music creation costs money - usually the artist pays for it, and he is paid either by the publisher or the fans. Music distribution costs money, however, the publishers and artists don't need to spend a thing on distribution, once it's out there. The fans will distribute the music to the rest of the fans, and they all will pay for the music in small, different ways. Bandwidth, blank tapes, cdrs, headphones, expensive stereos, good speakers, etc... if the RIAA wants to make money honestly off music, it should buy stock in the music hardware companies... but for all I know, they've probably already done that.
Music's best distribution channel has always been, is, and always will be the fans that give the music value in the first place. Music is just sound, just noise, just bits on a disc, scratches on a piece of vinyl. It has value to the artist, who put his love into creating it, and the fans, that put their love into collecting it. Music does not belong to the publishers, and it never has.
Fans create distribution channels for their favorite music, fan-run websites and magazines, newsgroups where they talk about and trade the latest songs and news, websites to collect lyrics to their favorite songs, etc...
I pay money for music. I go to the The Record Exchange down the street, and buy/trade/sell great piles of music, I'm quite popular there, actually. I pay money for music in the bandwidth I spend downloading music from napster. I'll pay quite a lot of money for music, but not one penny goes to the RIAA.
I have no right to free beer music. I have every right to free speech music.
Actually, that's not analagous. We have lots of ways to get online, other than through a library. We have college networks, internet connections at work, private isps, and companies like AOL and Compuserve, not to mention BBS's.
:) The government has that extra responsibility, because it has a monopoly - there are no other ways to walk around.
All sidewalks belong to the government. The government is required to allow free speech in public. Not that it always does, but that's rather offtopic.
They are completely different. Would you prefer we have privately owned streets and sidewalks, ala Snow Crash? Because that's exactly how isps are now. Maybe it would be better, I don't know.
It's only censorship if you are forcing it on someone. Making filtered internet connections availiable at the library isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's providing a service, not taking away a right. Where does the constitution promise us free web access?
Yes, there's a difference. The reason is, people still have a choice - they can get their internet service from someone else.
The other reason is that Chebucto Freenet is doing this out of their own free will. They are not being bullied by corporate lawyers/extortioners, patent protection rackets, large multinational copyright-holding industries or the local orwellian goverment.
There is plenty of censorship going on in the world, but this is not censorship. Unless someone from Chebucto Freenet would care to correct me?
Aye - FWIW, I'm 100% behind ya. It is not censorship to provide one thing, and not another. It is censorship to prevent someone else from providing it. IMHO, that definition of censorship cuts through most of the silliness on the subject that I've seen.
That's one reason I'm not bothered when a local library decides to install filters. Their connection, their choice. When a goverment agency mandates filters in all libraries - well, that stinks, but I'm not sure whether it's censorship or not because arguably, the public libraries belong to the goverment. When a goverment makes private isp's install filters, that's plain and simple censorship.
I would say mozilla-M17, then make a link to it through mozilla, and tell everything to use the mozilla path, like the linux source tree.
> It's only the accutely paranoid that would think that they would go after MP3.com and others who are distributing some arists' songs WITH their permision...
Actually, they already went after mp3.com.