Disney (the company) owns Mickey Mouse. So them charging for it are not getting "money for nothing". They are getting money for allowing you the use (viewing) of Mickey Mouse.
One problem with copyright is that it is temporary. Why author's lifetime +70 years (or whatever the farce of copyright law currently has it at)? Why not +100 years? Or only +10 years? There are only 3 rational options. No copyright, copyright for the life of the author only, or copyright for as long as whoever owns the copyright wants.
And you say you don't want something for nothing? Yet you say you want (in this example) Mickey Mouse, without paying Disney anything in return. That's actually the definition of something for nothing.
It goes on to bewail the fact that third parties with better solutions have been stopped from succeeding, for funding reasons.
No it doesn't. It says they failed because NASA wouldn't let them launch at any cost.
Now if the government truly has been witholding monies from really good projects, sure, that's bad.
That's exactly what the allegory is arguing against. Private enterprise actually cares about cost. NASA gets funding from taxpayers (ie: theft), so instead of being frugal, it's in their best interest to spend every penny each year, and then lobby for even more money.
For all it's sins, NASA did a good job early on - not the best, but who can do that? - although I'd agree it needs to start doing some proper advancement now.
Start doing some proper advancement now? That's the battle cry of the incompetent. "Sure, I really didn't do much the last 30 years, but now, just watch out, I'm ready to really get going!"
"Uh, but that's what you said 30 years ago. You're fired."
As for who can do their best. Again, the battle cry of the incompetent. "You can't expect me to do my best all the time can you?"
"No, but I expect you to do better than the other people competing for your job at your salary. You're fired."
But where space is concerned, I'm happy to play the waiting game. Impatient, but happy. The longer we wait, the safer and cheaper the eventual solution will be.
And you'll wait ever longer. Space travel hasn't gotten safer or cheaper. We went to the Moon. Now we're wasting money sending people up to do the same thing over and over again at a distance over 1,000 times closer than the Moon. And, alleged by the article, costs have increased. NASA is not only bungling their own efforts, they are also delaying the day which you'll ever make it into space.
node 3
Now's the time to do something about it. Create works and put them into the public domain!
Unless, of course, you would rather just have *other* people put their work into the public domain. I can't help you there.
Ask yourself this question: Why do I want things in the public domain?
(I'm not talking about fair use, or the DMCA, just the public domain.)
The answer, you will find, is that you want something for nothing. You want others to do the work for you.
I can't produce a single song that I'd enjoy listening to, but there are lots of others who can and do it daily. I'm glad to pay for music I enjoy. If I can't afford it, I will work for the money needed to pay for it.
It's likely that you can't produce an album either (or a movie, or a book, etc), but you want others to do it for you and for them to give it to you for free? And what, again, is their motivation?
Linus Torvalds was motivated by the fact that others will be able to improve upon his work. Software, like science, benefits from adding minds to a task. All classical music was composed by a single person, and modern music by one or two people, so the open source idea doesn't help here.
Richard Stallman was motivated by the desire to be able to fix his own stuff. He found the only way to guarantee that ability was by requiring the source code to be available. Songs and movies don't need fixing (ok, many do, but it's not like fixing a printer driver).
But what motivates the cry to force things into the public domain? And who's to do all this work for you for free?
"It took them long enough, but better late then never."
Late? Sherlock 3 has been out for less than 3 months. I suppose the Sherlock team could have waited until Sherlock 3 and its SDK were both ready.
Of course, then Jaguar would have just been released.
I'll take later on some things if it means earlier on others. As cool as the SDK is, it's kinda useless without the actual app itself. However I've found Sherlock 3 to be quite useful without the SDK.
Just go the the place where you got your 10^6 processor smp server. I'm sure they deal with 10^15 bytes of solid state storage all the time and will be happy to get you what you are looking for.
Since you're AC, I can only assume you're attempting to troll. Otherwise you've missed out on the nuances of conversation. Certainly I'd store mp3's on an mp3 player, not iso images of a CD, wouldn't you think?
Making average assumptions about bit rate and length of audio CD, a 6GB iPod will hold the audio from around 100 CD's. A CD will hold the contents of 1 CD, an mp3 CD will hold 10 CD's, a MiniDisc will hold the contents of 1 CD, an LPMD will hold the contents of 4-5 CD's (although it's quality is maxed out at about 2 CD's/LPMD).
All told, quite impressive for such a small package. Arguably the best portable audio solution out today.
-node 3
Least lame of any mp3 player yet.
on
Apple releases iPod
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It may be lame but compared to *every* other mp3 player out there, it's the least lame there is. It's small, FireWire (copy a CD in less than 10 seconds? You know how slow my Sony mp3 player was to load?). It even charges over the FireWire port.
So it's only 6GB. First off, that's a *lot*. It's about 100 CD's. How many CD's, MiniDiscs, 64MB flash cards, etc, does it take to equal that? Only a couple of HD-based systems are as convenient, and they all have other, more critical problems.
All other HD based players' problems tend to be slow speed (USB, let alone performance), large size, poor battery life, and horrible interfaces. All but performance is *definitely* better in the iPod just based on the specs and demos. Performance has yet to be seen.
iPod lame? Perhaps. It's just that everything else is more lame.
There was no such option. I know this option is in Windows 2000, I've clicked it many times. But this is WindowsME, unadulterated from Microsoft. I had a Sony VAIO that came with a Sony-fied version of WinME that did let you get out that way. It's obvious MS doesn't care whether users hate them or not, while Sony (and Compaq, Dell, etc) do have to care. It's much more likely a user will switch from Dell to Gateway (or vice versa) than from Windows to one of the Unixes.
I tried the same thing. I installed a fresh copy of WinME, doubled-clicked on IE and got a "Sign up for MSN" super-wizard thing. Every combo of "cancel"s, "next"s either ended in getting to an MSN username/account info page or exiting the super-wizard and thus unable to use IE (next time in, same process).
In the CLI, you can ping around, ipconfig/renew_all, and so on, but IE was still hosed. Doing properties on the network, no dice, all was correct. Internet Options had "use LAN connection" already checked, but you still get the sign-up rigamarole.
Eventually, somehow it just seemed to work. My guess is MS has either a time based or a number of tries based system that eventually gives up on forcing you to choose MSN or nothing. It's probably never supposed to give up pushing MSN and just had a bug which let me squeeze through.
Either way, by that point most consumers will have either signed up for MSN or returned their computer to Win98 (unable to get a refund for WinME since the box was opened, MS gets another $90).
>This license ensures developers can't be forced to use a specific license further down the line.
This is the biggest flaw in MS's campaign against Open Source. Their license ensure developers have to use MS's specific license further down the line. The GPL (and any other Open Source license) does the same (requires the use of the GPL, etc.). In fact, all licenses are there to control the terms of use in some way (including distribution, modifications, etc).
To say that the license protects developers is ludicrous. The developers *are* the end-users in this agreement and have more guarantee of rights under the GPL than they do under any MS license. The MS license only protects MS (which is its design).
MS is just trying to protect their property (which is a good thing), but they are lying (as usual) when they say it's for the good of the end-user.
I was a bit harsh against idealism since after all the idea of starting a new set of root servers because those that run the currents ones are lame is being idealistic.
I sort of envision a small group of people (open to the public) that keep track of who registers which TLD's and doesn't take 300 years to actually do something that people notice.
Personally I don't really want to become a registrar myself, but it would be great to have an organization that makes the process work more efficiently.
Looking at the OpenNIC's pages it looks a lot like what I'm talking about. The real question is how to gain wide-spread use?
I've been trying to think of a way to enhance the domain registry system for a while now (as have others, based on the attempts of the AltenrNIC and OpenNIC).
All such attempts will fail unless they can successfully meet the needs that the InterNIC is leaving unmet.
To me they seem to be:
An open, free process to acquire a domain name.
An objective and fair policy for domain name disputes that doesn't innately favor either the lone individual or the multi-billion dollar company.
An efficient means for adding new TLD's.
A method for becoming used enough to be worthwhile.
#1 is probably the second hardest. If the process is free, people will just run a perl script to register every word, trademark, and probably every letter/number combo their quatum computer can spit out in the time it takes to futz with a bucky-ball a few trillion-trillion times.
#'s 2 and 3 are fairly easy. Just come up with a charter that helps make those outcomes more likely. There are many internet task forces, working groups, committees, SIGs, consortiums, etc, to look towards for models. Just make a few bylaws, elect some officials, and take away all incentive for corruption. Also, don't be idealistic (ala, the FSF). Just be fair and open to all sides (like the internet tends to try to be), and you'll succeed.
#4 is the zinger... I can think of three ways to do it:
Start small, but with a plan. I'd first focus on a group of people who would adopt the new root servers, who can do it easily, and who wouldn't care, at first, if they're the only ones who know about it. Linux/Open Source/Free Software folks seem to be a good fit here. Also, if this "secret" club starts making a large buzz, more and more outsiders will become insiders. Think of what happened to Chips & Dips.
Make a big deal about it on key sites. Get Slashdot, Google, WiReD, etc, to put prominent links on their home pages to point to the new DNS project's home page.
Combine the first two, and probably a few others I haven't thought of.
Above all else, like I already said, don't be idealistic! Democratic Name Server? Would fire have caught on if it was Democratic? DNS is a mechanism, not a way of life. If you have two mechanisms which are equal in every way except that one is neutral, it just does what it does. The other does the same things, only it goes out of its way to teach some lesson, tell you you're bad or good, or something similar, which do you think would win going head-to-head? Which would you want to win?
I'd be willing to help on a project that could repair this flaw in the internet. Any takers?
Slashdot Mirror
Disney (the company) owns Mickey Mouse. So them charging for it are not getting "money for nothing". They are getting money for allowing you the use (viewing) of Mickey Mouse.
One problem with copyright is that it is temporary. Why author's lifetime +70 years (or whatever the farce of copyright law currently has it at)? Why not +100 years? Or only +10 years? There are only 3 rational options. No copyright, copyright for the life of the author only, or copyright for as long as whoever owns the copyright wants.
And you say you don't want something for nothing? Yet you say you want (in this example) Mickey Mouse, without paying Disney anything in return. That's actually the definition of something for nothing.
No it doesn't. It says they failed because NASA wouldn't let them launch at any cost.
That's exactly what the allegory is arguing against. Private enterprise actually cares about cost. NASA gets funding from taxpayers (ie: theft), so instead of being frugal, it's in their best interest to spend every penny each year, and then lobby for even more money.
Start doing some proper advancement now? That's the battle cry of the incompetent. "Sure, I really didn't do much the last 30 years, but now, just watch out, I'm ready to really get going!"
"Uh, but that's what you said 30 years ago. You're fired."
As for who can do their best. Again, the battle cry of the incompetent. "You can't expect me to do my best all the time can you?"
"No, but I expect you to do better than the other people competing for your job at your salary. You're fired."
And you'll wait ever longer. Space travel hasn't gotten safer or cheaper. We went to the Moon. Now we're wasting money sending people up to do the same thing over and over again at a distance over 1,000 times closer than the Moon. And, alleged by the article, costs have increased. NASA is not only bungling their own efforts, they are also delaying the day which you'll ever make it into space. node 3
Now's the time to do something about it. Create works and put them into the public domain!
Unless, of course, you would rather just have *other* people put their work into the public domain. I can't help you there.
Ask yourself this question: Why do I want things in the public domain?
(I'm not talking about fair use, or the DMCA, just the public domain.)
The answer, you will find, is that you want something for nothing. You want others to do the work for you.
I can't produce a single song that I'd enjoy listening to, but there are lots of others who can and do it daily. I'm glad to pay for music I enjoy. If I can't afford it, I will work for the money needed to pay for it.
It's likely that you can't produce an album either (or a movie, or a book, etc), but you want others to do it for you and for them to give it to you for free? And what, again, is their motivation?
Linus Torvalds was motivated by the fact that others will be able to improve upon his work. Software, like science, benefits from adding minds to a task. All classical music was composed by a single person, and modern music by one or two people, so the open source idea doesn't help here.
Richard Stallman was motivated by the desire to be able to fix his own stuff. He found the only way to guarantee that ability was by requiring the source code to be available. Songs and movies don't need fixing (ok, many do, but it's not like fixing a printer driver).
But what motivates the cry to force things into the public domain? And who's to do all this work for you for free?
"It took them long enough, but better late then never."
Late? Sherlock 3 has been out for less than 3 months. I suppose the Sherlock team could have waited until Sherlock 3 and its SDK were both ready.
Of course, then Jaguar would have just been released.
I'll take later on some things if it means earlier on others. As cool as the SDK is, it's kinda useless without the actual app itself. However I've found Sherlock 3 to be quite useful without the SDK.
Just go the the place where you got your 10^6 processor smp server. I'm sure they deal with 10^15 bytes of solid state storage all the time and will be happy to get you what you are looking for.
Hope that helps.
Too bad there's no money to be made by investing that money in making their software suck less.
Making average assumptions about bit rate and length of audio CD, a 6GB iPod will hold the audio from around 100 CD's. A CD will hold the contents of 1 CD, an mp3 CD will hold 10 CD's, a MiniDisc will hold the contents of 1 CD, an LPMD will hold the contents of 4-5 CD's (although it's quality is maxed out at about 2 CD's/LPMD).
All told, quite impressive for such a small package. Arguably the best portable audio solution out today.
-node 3
So it's only 6GB. First off, that's a *lot*. It's about 100 CD's. How many CD's, MiniDiscs, 64MB flash cards, etc, does it take to equal that? Only a couple of HD-based systems are as convenient, and they all have other, more critical problems.
All other HD based players' problems tend to be slow speed (USB, let alone performance), large size, poor battery life, and horrible interfaces. All but performance is *definitely* better in the iPod just based on the specs and demos. Performance has yet to be seen.
iPod lame? Perhaps. It's just that everything else is more lame.
-node 3
There was no such option. I know this option is in Windows 2000, I've clicked it many times. But this is WindowsME, unadulterated from Microsoft. I had a Sony VAIO that came with a Sony-fied version of WinME that did let you get out that way. It's obvious MS doesn't care whether users hate them or not, while Sony (and Compaq, Dell, etc) do have to care. It's much more likely a user will switch from Dell to Gateway (or vice versa) than from Windows to one of the Unixes.
-node 3
I tried the same thing. I installed a fresh copy of WinME, doubled-clicked on IE and got a "Sign up for MSN" super-wizard thing. Every combo of "cancel"s, "next"s either ended in getting to an MSN username/account info page or exiting the super-wizard and thus unable to use IE (next time in, same process).
/renew_all, and so on, but IE was still hosed. Doing properties on the network, no dice, all was correct. Internet Options had "use LAN connection" already checked, but you still get the sign-up rigamarole.
In the CLI, you can ping around, ipconfig
Eventually, somehow it just seemed to work. My guess is MS has either a time based or a number of tries based system that eventually gives up on forcing you to choose MSN or nothing. It's probably never supposed to give up pushing MSN and just had a bug which let me squeeze through.
Either way, by that point most consumers will have either signed up for MSN or returned their computer to Win98 (unable to get a refund for WinME since the box was opened, MS gets another $90).
What a racket...
-node 3
>This license ensures developers can't be forced to use a specific license further down the line.
This is the biggest flaw in MS's campaign against Open Source. Their license ensure developers have to use MS's specific license further down the line. The GPL (and any other Open Source license) does the same (requires the use of the GPL, etc.). In fact, all licenses are there to control the terms of use in some way (including distribution, modifications, etc).
To say that the license protects developers is ludicrous. The developers *are* the end-users in this agreement and have more guarantee of rights under the GPL than they do under any MS license. The MS license only protects MS (which is its design).
MS is just trying to protect their property (which is a good thing), but they are lying (as usual) when they say it's for the good of the end-user.
-node 3
I sort of envision a small group of people (open to the public) that keep track of who registers which TLD's and doesn't take 300 years to actually do something that people notice.
Personally I don't really want to become a registrar myself, but it would be great to have an organization that makes the process work more efficiently.
Looking at the OpenNIC's pages it looks a lot like what I'm talking about. The real question is how to gain wide-spread use?
end-of-line
All such attempts will fail unless they can successfully meet the needs that the InterNIC is leaving unmet.
To me they seem to be:
#1 is probably the second hardest. If the process is free, people will just run a perl script to register every word, trademark, and probably every letter/number combo their quatum computer can spit out in the time it takes to futz with a bucky-ball a few trillion-trillion times.
#'s 2 and 3 are fairly easy. Just come up with a charter that helps make those outcomes more likely. There are many internet task forces, working groups, committees, SIGs, consortiums, etc, to look towards for models. Just make a few bylaws, elect some officials, and take away all incentive for corruption. Also, don't be idealistic (ala, the FSF). Just be fair and open to all sides (like the internet tends to try to be), and you'll succeed.
#4 is the zinger... I can think of three ways to do it:
Above all else, like I already said, don't be idealistic! Democratic Name Server? Would fire have caught on if it was Democratic? DNS is a mechanism, not a way of life. If you have two mechanisms which are equal in every way except that one is neutral, it just does what it does. The other does the same things, only it goes out of its way to teach some lesson, tell you you're bad or good, or something similar, which do you think would win going head-to-head? Which would you want to win?
I'd be willing to help on a project that could repair this flaw in the internet. Any takers?
end-of-line