if all copyrights were taxed at a fixed (but significant) amount per year to maintain the copyright (all registered through the copyright office and searchable), there would be a significant carrying cost and most of the copyrighted material would revert to "public domain" and become available to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Think GPL - turning copyright into the tool of the people - we can do better than carrying costs, and in fact they would only be an unneccessary hinderance.
For example, the kid who wrote Chocolate Rain has a potential revenue stream from the YouTube advert. You can bet he wouldn't have guessed that he would get almost 15 million views - so he would automatically have ceeded his potential copyright into the public domain. Someone else who saw the potential could have stepped in, linked it to all the right sites, and took all the advertising revenue for themselves.
This is an issue which will resolve itself just as soon as the internet becomes the main (legitimate) medium for entertainment distribution. At this point all the money currently spent on old media advertising follows the shows to YouTube or whereever they are being distributed. This creates, in effect, a democratic marketplace which rewards creativity; which will allow viral video authors to generate a revenue stream and (if they wish) go mainstream. Well, that's the dream, anyway.. and at that point all the big copyright trolls can go fuck themselves as their precious content they horde will have become almost worthless.
Now that lawyers can access without charge documents created from the public purse, when should we expect to see these savings trickle down to the public as reduced legal fees?
The problem of article citation in Wikipedia isn't due to the fact that anyone can edit, more so the fact that it's hard to trace who is saying what and why. Attributing editorial control of a 'knol' to an expert introduces a bottleneck which, as the article states, may be fine for those wanting to learn about Abe Lincoln but which cannot scale as dynamically as the free-for-almost-all Wikipedia approach.
I think a better approach would be atomicize knowledge (e.g. "Hugh Hefner shaved his beard on 02/10/08"), make that source a verifiable resource attributable to individual users and then attribute adsense payouts dependent on page counts for ($num_verified_references - $num_unsubstantiated_rumours). You could then retain the successful wiki model for article construction but with greater trust for the facts contained. But then I, sadly, don't work for Google and I'm probably missing something significant.
If you're being chased up the garden path then I'd choose the expediency of an RFID lock rather than fumbling around for keys - seen enough movies to know how that ends.
What sort of emergency do you have in mind? No home security will deter a determined malicious threat from entering, but a gadgetted up house you could fully control with a device that fits in your pocket, could create enough of a distraction to escape.
Can you source this wild claim, at all?
That would require me to link to a bunch of stuff that I don't want to be associated with, and really don't want to go to while at work. My identity on Slashdot is pseudonymous, but I hope I've established a reputation of trustworthiness. However, I won't blame you for rejecting unsourced statements. But I really, really can't do that . I'm sorry. Actually - I'm sorry - my lazy eye misread what you wrote to infer that the civil and gay rights movements as supporting/working towards the social acceptance of pedophiles. That movements will use the successful techniques of other movements is not unusual or controversial enough to warrant a source-request!
"After that point, nothing is preventing you from examining and exploring your thoughts, which naturally can cause them to grow, especially when you have others legitimizing them. You can't rationalize it until the taboo is broken."
Surely it is an absence of rational thought which makes those feelings grow in the first place? Lest we, as society, feel that our established position is less rational?
I have not seen a single online community which has not splintered, fractured, or developed competing factions. The free exchange of ideas is precisely that which crumbles tyrannies of thought and lazy rationalisations. Maybe then it is not the internet at fault, but the people using it? Such that by forcing these people to practice extreme secrecy we have created the ideal conditions to in-breed their ideology?
You make the point that their actions or predilections are controlled by their ability to rationalise. If you or I even wanted to, we couldn't find a chatroom or forum to engage them in honest debate. We couldn't challenge their group mentality even if we knew where they hang out online; by the criminal act of posting our counter-arguments we'd simply become a statistic in the next 'bust'.
"They are explicitly using the civil rights and gay rights movements as templates for creating social acceptance. Keep an eye out for it."
"there's nothing about Hillary that warrants hatred from any group. Whether you'd vote for her or not, she hasn't done a single thing to be hated so badly by some people. If you 'hate' Hillary Clinton, there's something wrong with you."
Both Hillary and Bush falsely claimed Florida as a victory. It's the win-at-all-costs urge which makes me doubt her integrity, which reminds me of the same political games and tactics that got the country in the state it is now.
You get immature drum-beaters on both sides of the house, and there is a sense of urgency, of course there is. But to label it as hate, and to smear it on Obama supporters, that's just time-wasting distracting FUD.
"Of course, anyone who actually says that is never going to be elected... so what is needed is someone who is willing to do that, but also willing to lie about it until they're elected. What is REALLY needed is less transparency, at least until they're in the White House."
You're arguing in a tautology: "Cynicism is needed because my cynical reasoning reaches that conclusion."
Similarly when you again ignore the point about Transparency benefiting S&T and instead talk about issues of taxes/federal expenditures/homeowner bailouts. Yes everything is connected at some level, but that's Economics 101 and although they are important issues they do not relate to the topic of Transparency and Technology. By extension to your circular line of argument, you would have to conclude that you should pick the candidate who has the best relationship with your deity, as such that the universe doesn't wink out of existence.. which would, as a consequence, have a negative impact on Technology.
"...what good is S&T if you've got no money, and foreign investors refuse to lend..."
This thread is about the relationship between Transparency and Technology, the story is about who will give the best support to S&T. I feel that you are either unintentionally drifting off-topic slightly, or just using this thread as a personal soapbox.
If you've never worked for a Government, ask someone you know who has. They'll have plenty of examples of bad decisions, blatant abuses, borderline (and beyond) criminal actions which pass due to an order or ethos coming down from above, which cannot be questioned or publicised.
Software patents are a good example: Of course only a change of law will fix that situation, but without the transparency to see who is lobbying who on the issue, where the money flows, it won't even be debated.
"For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it."
Please respond to the point I made earlier about S&T not being about who knows the right answers (or who can spout the most convincing ones at the time), but who can create the environment where the right answer can be determined.
"No wonder you posted as an AC - your answer is the same any politician would give when asked a question - use a lot of BBBs (bullshit bingo buzzwords) to avoid actually giving an answer."
I don't think that that is entirely fair, not least because you go on the attack before actually stating your case as to why transparency of stakeholder interests has absolutely no affect on the mentioned issues.
Science and Technology aren't (or at least shouldn't) be about which agendas are popular at the moment, but ensuring that as much data as possible is made freely available to as many people as possible, so that the best determination can be made. This is the foundation which allows surfer dudes to challenge our notion of the universe.
In that sense, maximum transparency is the single most important agenda for tech issues. Example - if the greater truth was that net neutrality isn't the best policy decision to uphold, then I'd need a lot of convincing, but first on that list would be ensuring me that my cable company isn't just trying to screw me out of more $$$.
It doesn't - from the linked article: "NOTE: For most of these projects, you don't need the Nintendo Wii console. You only need the Wii controller and a bluetooth connection."
Considering that internet search and online advertising are exactly the places they don't dominate, I don't see why regulators would object.
Maybe, but the possibility of there only being two main search engines out there, with the next largest competitor Ask.com at a paltry 4.1%, is fairly scary.
There is a legitimate business model around supporting Free Software - which IBM demonstrates
End customers who use that Free Software are able to perform their work duties as well or better than those who would use MS Office - otherwise they would not be in competition to Microsoft (#1)
Standards bodies and Governments (of the people) should back OOXML/MS Office (of a corporation), which would encourage sales of MS Office, even though Free Software (of the people) is already up to the task (#2), and there is no key economic stimulus motivation (#1) (for the people) to do so
This should be a highly political debate - otherwise we encourage our Governments/Schools to continue to waste our taxes. If Microsoft didn't lobby such institutions then it would not be a political debate.
Calling Free Software a religious movement is a dubious and cheap slur against a movement.
Simply because it is a war of ideas and of propaganda. When we no longer have to suffer through such anti-piracy adverts, and when an industry doesn't heartlessly prosecute our children to make examples of them and extract a profit, then the war will be over.
The beautiful thing about the internet is that pointing and laughing leads to discussing and linking, which gets the issue out a lot quicker than knocking on doors would - what do you think we should do beyond that?
That is spine-tingling, hair-raising scary. Seriously. Ick.
I don't even buy the "I'd prefer him on our side than against us" argument - you just can't trust someone that unethical and focussed FTW, who eyes FUD with more hunger than a hobo does a ham sandwich.
No way would I touch that torrent.. all it takes is one underage myspace kid to have posted one nipple.. cue child pornography charges/public outcry/p2p filtering mandated/end game. It's the wet-dream of the **AA crowd.
Would you care to state upon whose behalf you are outraged? Of course not, you're an Anonymous Coward, or **AA. Just for that I'm going to download 5 more albums.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple stupidity....except when it comes to the Bush White House.
Well, technically it's the Office of Administration which is speaking here.. but agreed.. the sworn testimony which states that it is 'best practice' to recycle tapes containing archival data is quite astounding. There is at least one attempt to probe this, but accountability doesn't appear to be high on this administrations agenda.
True - it's fine to complain that 5% of users eat 50% of the available bandwidth, but if you increase your capacity by a factor of 10 then you've got 5% of users using 5% of the available bandwidth. Problem solved!
"The Gates Constant is expressed as a real number ratio which attempts to determine a single vector of positive impact upon the Free Software Movement, inadvertently created by Bill Gates during his tenure as chief strategist for Microsoft Corporation from its foundation until June 16, 2006. The ratio itself is defined as the number of lines of code contributed to Free Software projects during this period of time, divided by the number of lines of code which would have been contributed to Free Software projects had Microsoft Corporation not endured considerable animosity and backlash due to some of its more controversial strategic decisions.
Philosophy
Since the first term cannot be determined precisely and the second term can only be guessed upon, the actual value of the Gates Constant is unknowable and primarily of philosophical interest and debate within the Free Software Movement. References"
Slashdot Mirror
For example, the kid who wrote Chocolate Rain has a potential revenue stream from the YouTube advert. You can bet he wouldn't have guessed that he would get almost 15 million views - so he would automatically have ceeded his potential copyright into the public domain. Someone else who saw the potential could have stepped in, linked it to all the right sites, and took all the advertising revenue for themselves.
This is an issue which will resolve itself just as soon as the internet becomes the main (legitimate) medium for entertainment distribution. At this point all the money currently spent on old media advertising follows the shows to YouTube or whereever they are being distributed. This creates, in effect, a democratic marketplace which rewards creativity; which will allow viral video authors to generate a revenue stream and (if they wish) go mainstream. Well, that's the dream, anyway.. and at that point all the big copyright trolls can go fuck themselves as their precious content they horde will have become almost worthless.
Now that lawyers can access without charge documents created from the public purse, when should we expect to see these savings trickle down to the public as reduced legal fees?
Slurm Extreme.. now with 83 times as much fizz!
I think a better approach would be atomicize knowledge (e.g. "Hugh Hefner shaved his beard on 02/10/08"), make that source a verifiable resource attributable to individual users and then attribute adsense payouts dependent on page counts for ($num_verified_references - $num_unsubstantiated_rumours). You could then retain the successful wiki model for article construction but with greater trust for the facts contained. But then I, sadly, don't work for Google and I'm probably missing something significant.
What sort of emergency do you have in mind? No home security will deter a determined malicious threat from entering, but a gadgetted up house you could fully control with a device that fits in your pocket, could create enough of a distraction to escape.
Surely it is an absence of rational thought which makes those feelings grow in the first place? Lest we, as society, feel that our established position is less rational?
I have not seen a single online community which has not splintered, fractured, or developed competing factions. The free exchange of ideas is precisely that which crumbles tyrannies of thought and lazy rationalisations. Maybe then it is not the internet at fault, but the people using it? Such that by forcing these people to practice extreme secrecy we have created the ideal conditions to in-breed their ideology?
You make the point that their actions or predilections are controlled by their ability to rationalise. If you or I even wanted to, we couldn't find a chatroom or forum to engage them in honest debate. We couldn't challenge their group mentality even if we knew where they hang out online; by the criminal act of posting our counter-arguments we'd simply become a statistic in the next 'bust'.
"They are explicitly using the civil rights and gay rights movements as templates for creating social acceptance. Keep an eye out for it."Can you source this wild claim, at all?
Both Hillary and Bush falsely claimed Florida as a victory. It's the win-at-all-costs urge which makes me doubt her integrity, which reminds me of the same political games and tactics that got the country in the state it is now.
You get immature drum-beaters on both sides of the house, and there is a sense of urgency, of course there is. But to label it as hate, and to smear it on Obama supporters, that's just time-wasting distracting FUD.
Hey, even minor abuses should not be tolerated. If you ever get it in writing, or in an email you can print out discretely, I would direct you here.
You're arguing in a tautology: "Cynicism is needed because my cynical reasoning reaches that conclusion."
Similarly when you again ignore the point about Transparency benefiting S&T and instead talk about issues of taxes/federal expenditures/homeowner bailouts. Yes everything is connected at some level, but that's Economics 101 and although they are important issues they do not relate to the topic of Transparency and Technology. By extension to your circular line of argument, you would have to conclude that you should pick the candidate who has the best relationship with your deity, as such that the universe doesn't wink out of existence.. which would, as a consequence, have a negative impact on Technology.
"...what good is S&T if you've got no money, and foreign investors refuse to lend..."
This thread is about the relationship between Transparency and Technology, the story is about who will give the best support to S&T. I feel that you are either unintentionally drifting off-topic slightly, or just using this thread as a personal soapbox.
Software patents are a good example: Of course only a change of law will fix that situation, but without the transparency to see who is lobbying who on the issue, where the money flows, it won't even be debated.
"For example, odon't just say you're in favour of net neutrality - tell us how you're going to achieve it."
Please respond to the point I made earlier about S&T not being about who knows the right answers (or who can spout the most convincing ones at the time), but who can create the environment where the right answer can be determined.
I don't think that that is entirely fair, not least because you go on the attack before actually stating your case as to why transparency of stakeholder interests has absolutely no affect on the mentioned issues.
Science and Technology aren't (or at least shouldn't) be about which agendas are popular at the moment, but ensuring that as much data as possible is made freely available to as many people as possible, so that the best determination can be made. This is the foundation which allows surfer dudes to challenge our notion of the universe.
In that sense, maximum transparency is the single most important agenda for tech issues. Example - if the greater truth was that net neutrality isn't the best policy decision to uphold, then I'd need a lot of convincing, but first on that list would be ensuring me that my cable company isn't just trying to screw me out of more $$$.
It doesn't - from the linked article: "NOTE: For most of these projects, you don't need the Nintendo Wii console. You only need the Wii controller and a bluetooth connection."
Maybe, but the possibility of there only being two main search engines out there, with the next largest competitor Ask.com at a paltry 4.1%, is fairly scary.
This should be a highly political debate - otherwise we encourage our Governments/Schools to continue to waste our taxes. If Microsoft didn't lobby such institutions then it would not be a political debate.
Calling Free Software a religious movement is a dubious and cheap slur against a movement.
Classic FUD.
The beautiful thing about the internet is that pointing and laughing leads to discussing and linking, which gets the issue out a lot quicker than knocking on doors would - what do you think we should do beyond that?
I don't even buy the "I'd prefer him on our side than against us" argument - you just can't trust someone that unethical and focussed FTW, who eyes FUD with more hunger than a hobo does a ham sandwich.
Wht nt try jst blrng ll th vwls?
Since it used to be hosted on sourceforge, it would seem an appropriate location.
No way would I touch that torrent.. all it takes is one underage myspace kid to have posted one nipple.. cue child pornography charges/public outcry/p2p filtering mandated/end game. It's the wet-dream of the **AA crowd.
Would you care to state upon whose behalf you are outraged? Of course not, you're an Anonymous Coward, or **AA. Just for that I'm going to download 5 more albums.
I fear it's too late..
Well, technically it's the Office of Administration which is speaking here.. but agreed.. the sworn testimony which states that it is 'best practice' to recycle tapes containing archival data is quite astounding. There is at least one attempt to probe this, but accountability doesn't appear to be high on this administrations agenda.
True - it's fine to complain that 5% of users eat 50% of the available bandwidth, but if you increase your capacity by a factor of 10 then you've got 5% of users using 5% of the available bandwidth. Problem solved!
(minus the links)
"The Gates Constant is expressed as a real number ratio which attempts to determine a single vector of positive impact upon the Free Software Movement, inadvertently created by Bill Gates during his tenure as chief strategist for Microsoft Corporation from its foundation until June 16, 2006. The ratio itself is defined as the number of lines of code contributed to Free Software projects during this period of time, divided by the number of lines of code which would have been contributed to Free Software projects had Microsoft Corporation not endured considerable animosity and backlash due to some of its more controversial strategic decisions.
Philosophy
Since the first term cannot be determined precisely and the second term can only be guessed upon, the actual value of the Gates Constant is unknowable and primarily of philosophical interest and debate within the Free Software Movement. References"
It hurts my head too, I dunno, blame Stallman.