In what way? I do what I've had work for me. I use what others freely give and I return part of the profits I see to them freely. Likewise I freely give and assume people should return part of their profits to me. In their own best interests. An intelligent person would realize they won't have resources to build from if they horde all the resources they can lay hands on. Individuals are very limited - only as a collective can we succeed.
Reality is simply the way things are. It isn't the way things would function best if people were smart enough to make wise decisions. Ever done tech support? Obviously, the majority of humanity has the collective IQ of a chimp. It'd be more profitable to only share the fruits of our works amongst our own like minded people but we give equally to everyone in the hope of bettering everyone. It costs no more to copy IP to everyone than to copy it only to those who share back.
My work is free, not my time. Once it's produced it costs me nothing to give away duplicates for free. I only get so much time in life so I charge for that.
You can open stuff and still get paid. Duh. Obviously you've missed such invents such as the Internet and open source. Thinking that you need a monopoly to get paid is just stupid. I get paid because I do give away so much. People want to keep me producing and they want me to produce the things they want. A monopoly only helps if you're not good enough to keep producing or are easily replacable. Everything I release for free is part of my resume.
By decent I think no DRM is also required. I refuse to buy movies with DRM that hasn't been cracked. It's my right to make backups and media shift if I want to. I don't pay to be told what I can't do.
I have copies of all the Harry Potter books as plain-text and I got all but the most recent before the book was released. I still own at least three copies of each book with two copies being hardback not to mention the various HP collectables I've bought and the movies. Most people will pay for the physical item if it's what they want, is affordable, and the delay of getting the physical item isn't to great.
I've tried. Unfortunately users are cheap bastards who will gladly use the fruits of your labors but rarely bother making any sort of return gesture. No donations, nobody offering free rent, etc.
I do think it can work but not until non-geeks learn that giving can be more beneficial to themselves than taking. I do think it needs some sort of capitalist skeleton though as a pure gift society is difficult to maintain. It's pretty simple. Even if something is free you should still pay for it if you use it. Pay what you can afford and what seems a fair price. Free means you can set your own price not that you shouldn't pay.
At least I don't use the law to keep myself paid. I actually keep producing work so that I can keep getting paid. Funny that if I stop working then I stop getting paid. Rough isn't it? Other's keep using the fruit of my labors but they don't keep paying me over and over?! Shocking.
Publishers just want the benefit of being paid over and over for the same work rather than having to create new works. Nobody else enjoys such a benefit. Let them profit from selling the physical books (which some of us quite like) but do they really need the sole right to reproduce that content?
We are. I personally write code, articles, produce artwork, make videos, write stories, do research, invent things, etc - all released for free. I'm certainly not the only one here that's doing that I'm sure.
That doesn't mean there isn't anything to be gained by releasing existing works too. It's all the property of humanity. The creator has the right to profit off their work but not to horde it forever. If it's a work of any value then that loss to the human race would be to great to allow that sort of selfishness.
The article even says that some of these protesting publishers don't even have the titles of all the works they've released let alone copies of the works yet they're protesting making digital copies available. What kind of a loss is it for us when works are just lost in time because nobody is allowed to store backups?
To bad that most people today care more about buying a fancier house and car than about their fellow human beings. Damn the good of the public and of future generations so long as I have the biggest SUV on the block!
Maybe if libraries that have copies of the book would lend Google the right to lend a virtual copy of that book whenever the real copy isn't checked out? Combined with some sort of access control to reading the full copy from Google I'd think this would be legally acceptable. I doubt you'd even need to use DRM. Just force users to read the book from Google (rather than downloading) and only one person can check it out at a time (with an auto-release between reading sessions).
It's always been my understanding that I could lend a copy of some media I own so long as only one copy is being used at a time. (I usually use copies of CD's and DVD's while the original is kept safe.) I've wondered why libraries didn't use this to their advantage to extend the life of their media and expand their collections. They could literally produce one off's of requested works from a central database, paying for those works or sharing a token as described above only as needed and avoid storing a lot of copies physically.
I have a wifi+vpn network I use to connect people to my sort of public BBS / alternative Internet (alt DNS, alt websites, private file-trading, etc) project (I wonder how similar this is to Google's project?) and one of the key reasons behind it is that I can control everything user's see. To a company like Google that could be useful and profitable I think. Not only could they control what eyeballs see but they'd have the ability to observe in very fine detail what users were looking for.
The best thing we could really do for security is to write more software in high-level languages. Fewer holes such as buffer overflows and similar low-level flaws means that code that hasn't been permitted to execute is less likely to execute through loopholes. That combined with decent coding practices and use of OS's that have good built-in security (Unix, Linux, BSD, OSX) would mean a lot.
I rather liked the article a few days ago that suggests allowing no code to execute unless first added to a whitelist. That could annoy users but it'd help a lot. Only, it'd be a real pain in the ass on development machines so we'd have to have a way to turn that feature off.:)
One major distinction programmers need to get over is the distinction between code and data. Just because data wasn't meant to execute doesn't mean it can't. Just because data isn't Turing complete doesn't mean it isn't a program - structured data such as XML, JPEG, or MP3 files can all be considered programs. It's all dangerous.
About the closest you get in Windows these days is IE which obviously can be scripted with HTML and Javascript. Python would be pretty good as it's both easy to learn and pretty powerful and I've seen it on most Windows machines but I've never checked to see if Windows installed it.
You're right but it's true that ALL software is crap. I write some of the best software of anyone I've ever seen and I still consider it crap. No matter how perfect there is still room for error especially when combined with other software.
I hate that. I've fixed more people's computers by simply removing these crappy security suites than I ever have needed to fix viruses and hacks. A firewall, reasonable use restrictions (not installing Chinese software cracks), not using IE/Outlook, and running an occasional anti-virus anti-spyware scan are plenty.
Knowledge isn't really going down. It's just changing to meta-knowledge. Instead of knowing things we know methods. We know how to look up information quickly, how to process that information, and how to spew out new information that can be used by ourselves, others, or our machines.
Yes, if you unplug us we cease to function fully but while we're plugged in our reach is much further than our unplugged peers. It's really nothing different than people of the past that've relied on written data and social networks of peers to do these things. It's just gotten much faster which makes much more possible.
In the near future when Internet access is wired directly into the human brain we'll see this process accelerated even more. We're really beginning to function as a single humanity entity rather than as individuals. We're still individuals but we function as a group much better than in the past. Mobile blogging and similar tech is really just a foreshadow of things to come.
Your problem is that you think about it on a per program basis. For one program it really doesn't matter what format the config and mgmt is done in. If you have to manage hundreds of programs across dozens of machines with different OS's then it becomes a serious issue.
Myself, I abstract out configuration and management into a standard XML-RPC interface because it allows me to write the tools for those tasks without worrying about the details of those tasks at that layer. It's a nice abstraction that works easily with standard libraries. It's a lot bulkier, and error prone, to write an app that has to know how to configure and manage dozens of apps with varying methods of handling those tasks.
I've yet to see any other free tools that let you manage Linux, Windows, and OS X systems with the same lightweight program. Not to mention providing the same abstracted XML-RPC interface to other programmers to write their own config tools for.
Very true. I've asked for them to make a stand-alone version that could process data but I guess nobody that'd know enough about Gecko ever saw that request or saw it as important enough to bother with. It's on my list of todo projects but as big as my list is I doubt I'll get to it anytime soon.;)
It's because mgmt is cheap, lazy, and uneducated. They poor money into things advertisements tell them will help with security rather than spending money on good admins and the things those admins tell them to buy.
"Good security costs money and means I can't use my spyware infected Windows box to log into highly sensitive data? Phbbt forget that. Norton firewall should be enough!"
Linux is perfectly easy to use as a desktop when someone else sets it up for your needs. Easier than Windows or OSX usually.
It's a lie to say any computer is secure though. Even if it runs Linux or OSX a laptop is more of a security risk for the network simply because it's had more chance to be outside the control of any and all security policy. Never trust that the user's computer is secure.
Of course Windows is so insecure that I would never allow any employee of mine to connect to my corporate network with a computer running Windows. The probability that they could be sending out login information and other sensitive corporate data through some sort of spyware is just to high.
The point being that ALL (or almost all) GUI apps should be perfectly usable from the command-line. Why, for example, isn't it easy to enter a command on the command-line to tll Firefox to open a page and print it to PDF without ever opening the GUI? That'd be a great ability since Firefox actually renders html w/ css correctly unlike most html to pdf converters.;)
I'm sure it's good PR and a safe way to downsize but I agree that this is really altrustic and forward looking. Not the usual for American companies. If only the rest of the country was bright enough to follow IBM's lead.
Crappy math & science in schools can only lead to our countries loss of power, wealth, and leadership of the world. That means fewer good employees available and fewer customers. Not a good thing for IBM (or the US) so it makes sense to keep their revenue stream fertilized. Their throw aways today can be money in their pocket tomorrow if handled right.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just hold a rock to your head and talk into it as a little birdy memorizes your every word before flying off to tell Wilma.
In what way? I do what I've had work for me. I use what others freely give and I return part of the profits I see to them freely. Likewise I freely give and assume people should return part of their profits to me. In their own best interests. An intelligent person would realize they won't have resources to build from if they horde all the resources they can lay hands on. Individuals are very limited - only as a collective can we succeed.
Reality is simply the way things are. It isn't the way things would function best if people were smart enough to make wise decisions. Ever done tech support? Obviously, the majority of humanity has the collective IQ of a chimp. It'd be more profitable to only share the fruits of our works amongst our own like minded people but we give equally to everyone in the hope of bettering everyone. It costs no more to copy IP to everyone than to copy it only to those who share back.
My work is free, not my time. Once it's produced it costs me nothing to give away duplicates for free. I only get so much time in life so I charge for that.
You can open stuff and still get paid. Duh. Obviously you've missed such invents such as the Internet and open source. Thinking that you need a monopoly to get paid is just stupid. I get paid because I do give away so much. People want to keep me producing and they want me to produce the things they want. A monopoly only helps if you're not good enough to keep producing or are easily replacable. Everything I release for free is part of my resume.
By decent I think no DRM is also required. I refuse to buy movies with DRM that hasn't been cracked. It's my right to make backups and media shift if I want to. I don't pay to be told what I can't do.
I have copies of all the Harry Potter books as plain-text and I got all but the most recent before the book was released. I still own at least three copies of each book with two copies being hardback not to mention the various HP collectables I've bought and the movies. Most people will pay for the physical item if it's what they want, is affordable, and the delay of getting the physical item isn't to great.
I've tried. Unfortunately users are cheap bastards who will gladly use the fruits of your labors but rarely bother making any sort of return gesture. No donations, nobody offering free rent, etc.
I do think it can work but not until non-geeks learn that giving can be more beneficial to themselves than taking. I do think it needs some sort of capitalist skeleton though as a pure gift society is difficult to maintain. It's pretty simple. Even if something is free you should still pay for it if you use it. Pay what you can afford and what seems a fair price. Free means you can set your own price not that you shouldn't pay.
At least I don't use the law to keep myself paid. I actually keep producing work so that I can keep getting paid. Funny that if I stop working then I stop getting paid. Rough isn't it? Other's keep using the fruit of my labors but they don't keep paying me over and over?! Shocking.
Publishers just want the benefit of being paid over and over for the same work rather than having to create new works. Nobody else enjoys such a benefit. Let them profit from selling the physical books (which some of us quite like) but do they really need the sole right to reproduce that content?
We are. I personally write code, articles, produce artwork, make videos, write stories, do research, invent things, etc - all released for free. I'm certainly not the only one here that's doing that I'm sure.
That doesn't mean there isn't anything to be gained by releasing existing works too. It's all the property of humanity. The creator has the right to profit off their work but not to horde it forever. If it's a work of any value then that loss to the human race would be to great to allow that sort of selfishness.
The article even says that some of these protesting publishers don't even have the titles of all the works they've released let alone copies of the works yet they're protesting making digital copies available. What kind of a loss is it for us when works are just lost in time because nobody is allowed to store backups?
To bad that most people today care more about buying a fancier house and car than about their fellow human beings. Damn the good of the public and of future generations so long as I have the biggest SUV on the block!
Maybe if libraries that have copies of the book would lend Google the right to lend a virtual copy of that book whenever the real copy isn't checked out? Combined with some sort of access control to reading the full copy from Google I'd think this would be legally acceptable. I doubt you'd even need to use DRM. Just force users to read the book from Google (rather than downloading) and only one person can check it out at a time (with an auto-release between reading sessions).
It's always been my understanding that I could lend a copy of some media I own so long as only one copy is being used at a time. (I usually use copies of CD's and DVD's while the original is kept safe.) I've wondered why libraries didn't use this to their advantage to extend the life of their media and expand their collections. They could literally produce one off's of requested works from a central database, paying for those works or sharing a token as described above only as needed and avoid storing a lot of copies physically.
I have a wifi+vpn network I use to connect people to my sort of public BBS / alternative Internet (alt DNS, alt websites, private file-trading, etc) project (I wonder how similar this is to Google's project?) and one of the key reasons behind it is that I can control everything user's see. To a company like Google that could be useful and profitable I think. Not only could they control what eyeballs see but they'd have the ability to observe in very fine detail what users were looking for.
The best thing we could really do for security is to write more software in high-level languages. Fewer holes such as buffer overflows and similar low-level flaws means that code that hasn't been permitted to execute is less likely to execute through loopholes. That combined with decent coding practices and use of OS's that have good built-in security (Unix, Linux, BSD, OSX) would mean a lot.
:)
I rather liked the article a few days ago that suggests allowing no code to execute unless first added to a whitelist. That could annoy users but it'd help a lot. Only, it'd be a real pain in the ass on development machines so we'd have to have a way to turn that feature off.
One major distinction programmers need to get over is the distinction between code and data. Just because data wasn't meant to execute doesn't mean it can't. Just because data isn't Turing complete doesn't mean it isn't a program - structured data such as XML, JPEG, or MP3 files can all be considered programs. It's all dangerous.
About the closest you get in Windows these days is IE which obviously can be scripted with HTML and Javascript. Python would be pretty good as it's both easy to learn and pretty powerful and I've seen it on most Windows machines but I've never checked to see if Windows installed it.
You're right but it's true that ALL software is crap. I write some of the best software of anyone I've ever seen and I still consider it crap. No matter how perfect there is still room for error especially when combined with other software.
I hate that. I've fixed more people's computers by simply removing these crappy security suites than I ever have needed to fix viruses and hacks. A firewall, reasonable use restrictions (not installing Chinese software cracks), not using IE/Outlook, and running an occasional anti-virus anti-spyware scan are plenty.
If you need more then switch to Linux.
I thought that was Windows.
So I filter this crap out and have the camera set to record when it detects a blocking attempt.. an easy way to know when it might be worth recording.
Knowledge isn't really going down. It's just changing to meta-knowledge. Instead of knowing things we know methods. We know how to look up information quickly, how to process that information, and how to spew out new information that can be used by ourselves, others, or our machines.
Yes, if you unplug us we cease to function fully but while we're plugged in our reach is much further than our unplugged peers. It's really nothing different than people of the past that've relied on written data and social networks of peers to do these things. It's just gotten much faster which makes much more possible.
In the near future when Internet access is wired directly into the human brain we'll see this process accelerated even more. We're really beginning to function as a single humanity entity rather than as individuals. We're still individuals but we function as a group much better than in the past. Mobile blogging and similar tech is really just a foreshadow of things to come.
I'm lazy as to the amount of energy I'll expend on a single task but not lazy in general. I just cram more tasks in than non-lazy people.
Your problem is that you think about it on a per program basis. For one program it really doesn't matter what format the config and mgmt is done in. If you have to manage hundreds of programs across dozens of machines with different OS's then it becomes a serious issue.
Myself, I abstract out configuration and management into a standard XML-RPC interface because it allows me to write the tools for those tasks without worrying about the details of those tasks at that layer. It's a nice abstraction that works easily with standard libraries. It's a lot bulkier, and error prone, to write an app that has to know how to configure and manage dozens of apps with varying methods of handling those tasks.
I've yet to see any other free tools that let you manage Linux, Windows, and OS X systems with the same lightweight program. Not to mention providing the same abstracted XML-RPC interface to other programmers to write their own config tools for.
Very true. I've asked for them to make a stand-alone version that could process data but I guess nobody that'd know enough about Gecko ever saw that request or saw it as important enough to bother with. It's on my list of todo projects but as big as my list is I doubt I'll get to it anytime soon. ;)
It's because mgmt is cheap, lazy, and uneducated. They poor money into things advertisements tell them will help with security rather than spending money on good admins and the things those admins tell them to buy.
"Good security costs money and means I can't use my spyware infected Windows box to log into highly sensitive data? Phbbt forget that. Norton firewall should be enough!"
Linux is perfectly easy to use as a desktop when someone else sets it up for your needs. Easier than Windows or OSX usually.
:)
It's a lie to say any computer is secure though. Even if it runs Linux or OSX a laptop is more of a security risk for the network simply because it's had more chance to be outside the control of any and all security policy. Never trust that the user's computer is secure.
Of course Windows is so insecure that I would never allow any employee of mine to connect to my corporate network with a computer running Windows. The probability that they could be sending out login information and other sensitive corporate data through some sort of spyware is just to high.
Be paranoid!
The point being that ALL (or almost all) GUI apps should be perfectly usable from the command-line. Why, for example, isn't it easy to enter a command on the command-line to tll Firefox to open a page and print it to PDF without ever opening the GUI? That'd be a great ability since Firefox actually renders html w/ css correctly unlike most html to pdf converters. ;)
I guess it depends if you believe that such a thing as /real/ altruism. Myself, I think everyone thinks of themselves even when thinking of others.
I'm sure it's good PR and a safe way to downsize but I agree that this is really altrustic and forward looking. Not the usual for American companies. If only the rest of the country was bright enough to follow IBM's lead.
Crappy math & science in schools can only lead to our countries loss of power, wealth, and leadership of the world. That means fewer good employees available and fewer customers. Not a good thing for IBM (or the US) so it makes sense to keep their revenue stream fertilized. Their throw aways today can be money in their pocket tomorrow if handled right.