If Napster can't list music that RIAA owns, it's pointless for them to list music that it doesn't. Indy labels in Napster are like the little CD in the bin next to the 500 copies of something popular. You might grab the little CD because it looks interesting, but you never would've come to the store if the 500 copies of something popular weren't there.
Besides, it's pointless. Copyright is dead. If Napster doesn't survive, something else will. It's like making laws against picking your nose or spitting on the sidewalk. You can scream like howler monkeys every time someone does it and maybe even try to arrest people for it, but you'll never actually make any significant dent in the number of people doing it.
The only solution is to realized that copyright based models for paying artists are dead and think of something better. Here are some links to a couple I've seen:
One of my own that I haven't written up on the web yet
None of those guarantee money to an artist for every person who gets a copy of a work. My suggestion as to how to deal with this is to get over it. I think many of them will work well enough that decent artists will make a good living. All of them significantly diminish the role of the middleman.
All religions are made up. They are all products of a human imagination. It doesn't make them any less valid IMHO, just a poor thing to use as a reference manual for the physical universe. They may make excellent moral and spiritual guides, but that's a totally different matter.
The alternative to my assertion would be deciding that one of them is true in some physical sense. That's kind of a silly basis when some random scientist can go and disprove your entire religion with a few experiments.
There is actually a sort of overall clock in the mind. I remember reading that brainwaves seem to be a kind of general clock signal that seems to be used for coordinating certain activities of conciousness. Sorry to be so vague. The article was awhile ago, and in print. I think in Scientific American.
That being said, I think you're right, the brain is largely asynchronous.
BTW, as a shameless plug, my StreamModule System is also largely asynchronous. It's for IPC though, not for gate-logic.
I'm willing to pay for Linux games. I'm not so sure the Open Source model can effectively compensate for the kind of effort that goes into making games work.
I don't know about you, but _I'm_ buying Tribes 2 for Linux. Even though I really have had a difficult time getting hardware acceleration supported on my G400. I'll buy it as soon as it hits the shelves and figure out how to make hardware acceleration work later.
Yes, but chroot is a pain to code because oftentimes you want to provide _some_ access to local files. Also, it still doesn't solve the socket problem.
No, I'm talking about doing things like having a program you ask for file decriptors of resources you want to have access to. That actually works, as opposed to your half-baked renditions of what you thought I was trying to say.
Unix is almost as good as Eros because of the ability to pass file desciptors between programs through pipes and AF_UNIX sockets. It's a very underutilized ability.
I think trying to put any kind of role based security in the kernel itself is just asking for a slow, buggy kernel with lots of security holes. Something even worse than you have now.
Yeah, except I don't think a random process can su to 'nobody'.
Also 'nobody' has read access to everything that's world readable and write access to everything that's world writeable and can still create connections to the outside world. All of these things should be restricted to the 'untrusted' user I was thinking of.
Role based security is a panacea for those who think they somehow need it at the OS level. It can easily be implemented at the application level using Unix's current security model. This is a stupid feature to add.
Now, what would be a good feature is this:
An 'untrusted' user that any process can switch to that has very limited access to anything on your system. This would provide a way to semi-safely run executable content without worrying about whether or not it will be a virus or not.
This is a silly reason. It's a slight different in how floating point calculations are done on the two platforms. Floating point calculations not involving powers of two are going to have some error in them. For some reason, with gcc under Linux on the x86, the error results in the second calculation giving a result very slightly less than 10. The (int) typecast does not round.
This more proves the lesson that you shouldn't expect exact results out of floating point calculations that it proves whether or not any particular OS is better than another.
I have a similar problem with my Matrox card and 3D accelerated games. But, it's a very predictable crash.
I don't ever run NT at home, and when I've run it at work a Windows BSOD is a very, very rare event (though less rare than a Linux crash. I've never had Linux crash at work). I think it requires certain kinds of load, certain software, or certain hardware to make your machine BSOD prone. The thing is, from what I can tell, it's very difficult to tell exactly what it is that's doing it when it happens. It's very rarely an obvious cause and effect relationship.
You are a willful idiot. Trademarks, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets have _very_ different properties, even from a purely legal standpoint. Lumping them together under 'intellectual property' is largely just a way of distinguishing them from physical property. They barely have anything to do with one another.
It's kind of like lumping together derivatives, bonds, and stock and asking someone to come up with a general opinion about all of them as 'financial instruments'.
If you really knew anything about databases, you'd know that he's largely right. I was actually pretty impressed by his post.
The problem with University professors is that many of them have not worked outside academia. 3rd normal form is the 'right' thing to do. It's clean and elegant. Sadly, it requires more joining than you'd really like to do, and that's the problem. Joins are slow.
If you carefully denormalize after coming up with a normalized design first, you'll end up with a much faster database.
So, what's it called then when a company takes something public and starts charging everybody for it, doing everything possible to hide the fact that it's a public resource?
Perhaps stealing isn't the right word, but it seems to me like a slimy, shady, underhanded practice that I'd like to stomp out.
Yeah, but if you asked me my opinion on all of them at once, I'd have to tell you I have no opinion that could really apply to all of those things. Just because you can lump things into a category and label it doesn't mean that all of the same statements apply to all of them.
You're applying your own interpretation to my words. I was talking specifically about the section I quoted, and yes, RMS is very right about that. Using the overarching term 'intellectual property' for trademarks, patents and copyrights is fuzzy thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Leave it up to Slashdot to moderate up the inflammatory ad-hominem attack and ignore the decent comment that I made. *grin*
If Napster can't list music that RIAA owns, it's pointless for them to list music that it doesn't. Indy labels in Napster are like the little CD in the bin next to the 500 copies of something popular. You might grab the little CD because it looks interesting, but you never would've come to the store if the 500 copies of something popular weren't there.
Besides, it's pointless. Copyright is dead. If Napster doesn't survive, something else will. It's like making laws against picking your nose or spitting on the sidewalk. You can scream like howler monkeys every time someone does it and maybe even try to arrest people for it, but you'll never actually make any significant dent in the number of people doing it.
The only solution is to realized that copyright based models for paying artists are dead and think of something better. Here are some links to a couple I've seen:
None of those guarantee money to an artist for every person who gets a copy of a work. My suggestion as to how to deal with this is to get over it. I think many of them will work well enough that decent artists will make a good living. All of them significantly diminish the role of the middleman.
You are hilarious and an idiot. Copyright is dead. Think of a different way to make the money. It only really helped the middle man anyway.
All religions are made up. They are all products of a human imagination. It doesn't make them any less valid IMHO, just a poor thing to use as a reference manual for the physical universe. They may make excellent moral and spiritual guides, but that's a totally different matter.
The alternative to my assertion would be deciding that one of them is true in some physical sense. That's kind of a silly basis when some random scientist can go and disprove your entire religion with a few experiments.
There is actually a sort of overall clock in the mind. I remember reading that brainwaves seem to be a kind of general clock signal that seems to be used for coordinating certain activities of conciousness. Sorry to be so vague. The article was awhile ago, and in print. I think in Scientific American.
That being said, I think you're right, the brain is largely asynchronous.
BTW, as a shameless plug, my StreamModule System is also largely asynchronous. It's for IPC though, not for gate-logic.
And I suppose some Christian, Muslim, or Jew has a religion less worthy of scorn simply because it was made up a longer time ago?
Not saying religion is deserving of scorn, just that yours is rather misplaced.
I'm willing to pay for Linux games. I'm not so sure the Open Source model can effectively compensate for the kind of effort that goes into making games work.
I don't know about you, but _I'm_ buying Tribes 2 for Linux. Even though I really have had a difficult time getting hardware acceleration supported on my G400. I'll buy it as soon as it hits the shelves and figure out how to make hardware acceleration work later.
Yes, but chroot is a pain to code because oftentimes you want to provide _some_ access to local files. Also, it still doesn't solve the socket problem.
No, I'm talking about doing things like having a program you ask for file decriptors of resources you want to have access to. That actually works, as opposed to your half-baked renditions of what you thought I was trying to say.
Unix is almost as good as Eros because of the ability to pass file desciptors between programs through pipes and AF_UNIX sockets. It's a very underutilized ability.
I think trying to put any kind of role based security in the kernel itself is just asking for a slow, buggy kernel with lots of security holes. Something even worse than you have now.
I need to use 'preview' more often.
Yeah, except I don't think a random process can su to 'nobody'.
Also 'nobody' has read access to everything that's world readable and write access to everything that's world writeable and can still create connections to the outside world. All of these things should be restricted to the 'untrusted' user I was thinking of.
Yeah, except I don't think a random process can su to 'nobody'.
Role based security is a panacea for those who think they somehow need it at the OS level. It can easily be implemented at the application level using Unix's current security model. This is a stupid feature to add.
Now, what would be a good feature is this:
An 'untrusted' user that any process can switch to that has very limited access to anything on your system. This would provide a way to semi-safely run executable content without worrying about whether or not it will be a virus or not.
*shrug* Floating point is tricky. I would class your post as a clever troll. I think gcc, by default, is not strictly IEEE compliant.
This is a silly reason. It's a slight different in how floating point calculations are done on the two platforms. Floating point calculations not involving powers of two are going to have some error in them. For some reason, with gcc under Linux on the x86, the error results in the second calculation giving a result very slightly less than 10. The (int) typecast does not round.
This more proves the lesson that you shouldn't expect exact results out of floating point calculations that it proves whether or not any particular OS is better than another.
I have a similar problem with my Matrox card and 3D accelerated games. But, it's a very predictable crash.
I don't ever run NT at home, and when I've run it at work a Windows BSOD is a very, very rare event (though less rare than a Linux crash. I've never had Linux crash at work). I think it requires certain kinds of load, certain software, or certain hardware to make your machine BSOD prone. The thing is, from what I can tell, it's very difficult to tell exactly what it is that's doing it when it happens. It's very rarely an obvious cause and effect relationship.
That's a nasty trick to play, using tag attributes to color your sig red like that!
Seems to me to be one of the myriad of ways of getting to know someone is by posting messages and seeing how they respond. :-)
Despite the fact that you agree with me, I invoke Godwin's law.
You are a willful idiot. Trademarks, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets have _very_ different properties, even from a purely legal standpoint. Lumping them together under 'intellectual property' is largely just a way of distinguishing them from physical property. They barely have anything to do with one another.
It's kind of like lumping together derivatives, bonds, and stock and asking someone to come up with a general opinion about all of them as 'financial instruments'.
You obviously know a lot about databases and database design, so I ask you... How are IDs non-relational?
I tend to use them because I like to map relational models to an object model, and IDs are very useful for this purpose.
If you really knew anything about databases, you'd know that he's largely right. I was actually pretty impressed by his post.
The problem with University professors is that many of them have not worked outside academia. 3rd normal form is the 'right' thing to do. It's clean and elegant. Sadly, it requires more joining than you'd really like to do, and that's the problem. Joins are slow.
If you carefully denormalize after coming up with a normalized design first, you'll end up with a much faster database.
So, what's it called then when a company takes something public and starts charging everybody for it, doing everything possible to hide the fact that it's a public resource?
Perhaps stealing isn't the right word, but it seems to me like a slimy, shady, underhanded practice that I'd like to stomp out.
Yeah, but if you asked me my opinion on all of them at once, I'd have to tell you I have no opinion that could really apply to all of those things. Just because you can lump things into a category and label it doesn't mean that all of the same statements apply to all of them.
You're applying your own interpretation to my words. I was talking specifically about the section I quoted, and yes, RMS is very right about that. Using the overarching term 'intellectual property' for trademarks, patents and copyrights is fuzzy thinking.