While I won't argue with the "business first" and "maximize profits" goals, I would like to add that the obvious straight line isn't always the shortest path.
A sysadmin maximizes profits by keeping the computer users productive. While system lockdown can tend to increase uptime, and improve the sysadmin's "productivity," it may very well impair the productivity of the users. Imagine a broad curve, with degree of lockdown on the X axis and net productivity on the Y axis. No controls at all, and productivity is low because the net gets bogged down, and nothing stays up. Controls too tight, and productivity is low because one size NEVER fits all. Try giving vi to an emacs bigot, or vice versa. Tell them their job REQURES that they use the ONE TRUE EDITOR, and they'll use it, but not happily, and there will be other symptoms, as well. To "maximize profits" you have to juggle multiple factors, and it just ain't simple.
Part of the reason I specified a large area was so that some number of species could remain entirely within it. The areas you mention are most critical, but they're also vulnerable outside of those seasonal concentration times. I was also thinking in terms of preserving an adequate slice of the bottom of the food chain.
Spiffy. I'll have to dig deeper into the link later, I just glanced at it, now.
How well are these things working at preserving aquatic life? I would have expect that sheer area would have been a necessary ingredient, and that would end up involving international waters.
Do they have any reason to believe that there's drillable oil under any of these MPAs?
My own pet project, which will likely never happen, to preserve biodiversity...
Cordon off a large area of ocean, certainly >100 sq mi, likely at least 10 times that. Ideally that area would straddle the continental shelf too, I would guess. Within that area, NO FISHING, and enforce with lethal means, if necessary. Fish right along the borders, but no fishing inside, whatsoever.
I think it would work, though I'm probably lowballing the required area. But I suspect the real problems are political. The area required is so big that it can't be done by one nation, since it would slop out into international waters. It would have to be established by international treaty. Then enforcement would be a problem, especially with respect to non-signatories. No doubt multiple preserves in different ocean areas would be better/necessary, too.
I was surprised to hear about the "collapse of the Atlantic cod fisheries" as a past fact in the last month on NPR. We're in a heap of trouble, and doing nothing to extricate ourselves, other than some farming of fish like salmon, catfish, trout, and tilapia. I like my proposal, because it leaves the concept of fishing intact, but it attempts to protect fish.
I seem to remember hearing that the open source R300 drivers are finally making some headway. Obviously this is only n-1 generations obsolete instead of n, but it's an improvement.
But the point is well taken. If X moves on top of OpenGL, and if we don't have an adequate open source OpenGL to fit in there, we're in trouble.
He mentioned the ego factor. If your source code is ugly, crufty, and buggy, and you let it out into the open, people will mock and deride you and your skills. While open source advocates like to talk about "thousands of eyes," I suspect pride and socialization have just as much to do with the code quality.
I guess I'll tone down the "mock and deride" statement a little. In the best world, people will constructively help you improve your skills. If you refuse or fail to learn, then they'll mock and deride - and ignore you, which is just as bad.
I fear that in today's society, the Adelphi charter is irrelevant and misdirected. Keep in mind the real priorties:
1: Corporate rights shall be preserved. 2: Corporate freedom of action shall be maximized. 3: Opportunity for revenue and profit shall not be impeded.
I just went to see "Why We Fight" this weekend, including a Q&A with the writer/director, afterward. To be short, sweet, and simple, it wasn't a rant against the Bush administration. They are merely the latest (and most willing?) phase in the rise to power of the military-industrial complex. The movie was a warning about corporatism, rooted in Ike's parting message about the military-industrial complex.
In retrospect, the Free Software movement is perhaps one of the most important ones in today's world. As far as I can tell, it is the ONLY major endeavour of modern life not utterly dominated by corporate interests. No wonder there is so much interest in things like the DMCA, DRM, HDMI, TPM, etc. I suspect the fine-tuning will be to push Free Sofware into the correct corral, so it's developments can continue to be harvested, yet at the same time make it irrelevant to day-today life.
Or that classic, Brent Spinor singing "Old Yellow Eyes is Back." My son's a bit of a Star Trek fan, and I looked into it a few years back. Out of print.
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft WINS, though the situation would no doubt be similar if Sony were to WIN.
Right now, Microsoft is subsidizing the XBox with other revenues, and I don't mean just game sales. If they were unfettered by competition, they'd bring their games division back to at least break-even. They'd be nuts to do anything else. They'd probably also cut development resource to the minimum - just enough to keep competition from forming. (Or they'd cut below that, and restaff once it became apparent that a new competitor was coming on.) Prices would rise, progress would slow. Kind of like the way DOS 3.3 stagnated, back before DRDOS heated things up, again.
But it's in all of our best interests that neither Sony nor Microsoft "WIN" this console war, at least not conclusively. It's better for us that any "win" be press-only, hotly disputed, and that in a few years we repeat this whole argument with the XBox3 and PS4. For that matter, it's best the Nintendo remain a player, too.
Having "a winner" in the conclusive sense, no matter who it is, is the worst option.
While I don't approve of the anti-science attitude, I think I can put a spin on it which makes it more understandable.
Science was supposed to make life better. By making things more efficient, it was supposed to make our biggest problem what to do with all of our leasure time. It was supposed to bring an era of plenty for all, and end poverty.
I know, sounds Pollyanna-ish. But you know, thinking harder about it, I believe all of the Pollyanna stuff I just spouted is possible, and with today's technology. The problem occurred somewhere on the way from the scientists to the marketplace. I suspect that in today's world, there's plenty, and nobody need go without food, shelter, or clothing.
It's a distribution problem. It's also a marketplace problem. I suspect that the most important product in today's market place is - scarcity. Look at post-Katrina... Petrochemical supplies dropped by 10-15%, prices jumped 35%. Make less product, make more money. Look at the whole ??AA and DRM issues. In fact, the "duplication" aspect of publication is rendered effectively obsolete by modern technology. Rather than seeking a way to equitably fund artists and the editorial/promotional aspects of publication, the publication industries have placed their focus on restriction of publication.
We also have super-rich and poor. I'm clearly not one in favor of Communism/Socialism, I like the ability to improve my lot by hard work and self improvement. I don't question that some people earn and have more than others - it's the magnitude of the difference that bothers me, and the fact that the system is being gamed.
So science got filtered on its way to the people. Instead of plenty for all, we have absurd riches for some, and poverty still exists. Instead of more leasure time for workers, we have fewer jobs, and those who have them work more than before.
Unfortunately and unfairly, science gets much of the blame. The problem is really excess greed. Some greed is healthy and motivating. But just like a mature human being knows how much to eat, he/she should understand how much greed is good.
It adds a whole lot of value... for Intel. Just like DRM is a really good thing... for content providers.
While I'd like to think this is the same great country I was born and grew up in, stuff like this SUCKS, along with a whole lot of other things. This sums up to leave me with the distinct impression that MY country has been sold, behind me. That little fear bubbling in the back of my mind is that it's beyond redemption.
By the subject of this whole article, for a whole segment of the marketplace, it's going to be considered "broken" already. Even at that, we gotten to the technical operability aspects, yet. If they can make sure that HDCP "just works" for everyone but geeks, they'll probably get DRM pushed into the market. But so far the only form of DRM I've seen hit the market that "just works" is traditional DVD CSS, and its scope was much more limited.
The part of "public domain" that during "Ashcroft vs (whoever)" argued before the Supreme Court asserted that Congress could do pretty much whatever it wanted with copyright, including pulling works out of the public domain and assigning copyright to a holder. The "limited" in the Constitution means pretty much whatever Congress wants it to mean. The intent of the framers appears to be pretty much washed over.
I think it more interesting that Disney got some of its best material out of the public domain to make into movies. Seems to me that part of their downhill slide, at least in terms of movies/cartoons, happened as they felt they'd fully plumbed the public domain, and moved on to works for-hire. IMHO the concept of a public domain, as a public resource to be enriched and used by all, is under-appreciated.
But you know what bothers me most about your post... I pretty much agree with it. Plus, let me extrapolate what I quote from you in my Subject, and apply it to what's happening to my country, NOW. The current direction in the US with respect to science an religion just reminds me too much of what happened in the Muslim empire some centuries ago. They've never recovered. We're just starting the downhill path.
I've been on Adelphia and their incrementally-increasing price scale for several years. (In addition they have absurdly restrictive TOS.) It's been Adelphia or dial-up, until a month or 2 ago. DSL is finally available to me. From Verizon.
So the Verizon page qualifies me, and up until recently they offered me 768/128 for $15/mo for the first year, if I pay up-front. Good deal to me, 1/2 the rated speed of my cable, for 1/3 the price. (Actually, last I knew the cable was $45/mo. I haven't looked at a bill for a while, and I know the whole thing has gone up, but don't know the pieces.) Unfortunately they say nothing about month 13 and onward. For $180/yr I'd jump, and I'd tweak cron jobs to "emerge -atuvDNf" (It's that "f".) at night, and move my big bandwidth needs into the wee hours when they don't make me wait. But at the moment, I have no idea what the long-term price is, and I haven't been able to find anything on their web site. Today I navigated their phone trees, and found NOTHING in their list of options that gave me a place to find my answer, nor was their a way to talk to a real person.
Besides I took a look, and Verizon's TOS look no better than Adelphia's.
My big issue is getting DynDNS.org Mailhop Relay to deliver mail directly to me, and skip the silly pop box. Technically it's "running a server" and technically it's against TOS for both providers. But in fact it uses less of their resources than the approved method, and if correctly set up is no vulnerability or traffic issue.
Isn't just about the whole modern American business model about building bottlenecks? Not the first, but today's shining example is that Microsoft has positioned itself as the bottleneck in buying a PC. (the PC "tax"?) (single highest profit part, only part unfettered by competition) The whole patent system has been perverted to where it's no longer used by business (and run by the government) to foster innovation, and everything about creating bottlenecks and tollbooths. Look at the number of things we pay for, like music/movies, etc that are changing from pay-to-obtain to monthly intravenous money drips.
This has very little to do with bandwidth, and much more to do with Google's stock price, and Verizon's envy. (Google's market cap is greater than IBM's.)
There may be another reason for restricting the developer set. Keep in mind that this isn't a general restriction, it's only in the area of DRM.
From what I remember, DVD CSS was cracked because one company used a weak key. That key was SO bad it was fairly easy to brute-force, and then there were more fundamental weaknesses that allowed them to extract the other keys, given the first one.
Had there never been a weak key, perhaps DVD John never would have gotten his 15 minutes of fame.
So perhaps this DRM developer restriction is to make sure that nobody makes a weak key, that they do a better job of educating this smaller set of developers.
Slashdot Mirror
While I won't argue with the "business first" and "maximize profits" goals, I would like to add that the obvious straight line isn't always the shortest path.
A sysadmin maximizes profits by keeping the computer users productive. While system lockdown can tend to increase uptime, and improve the sysadmin's "productivity," it may very well impair the productivity of the users. Imagine a broad curve, with degree of lockdown on the X axis and net productivity on the Y axis. No controls at all, and productivity is low because the net gets bogged down, and nothing stays up. Controls too tight, and productivity is low because one size NEVER fits all. Try giving vi to an emacs bigot, or vice versa. Tell them their job REQURES that they use the ONE TRUE EDITOR, and they'll use it, but not happily, and there will be other symptoms, as well. To "maximize profits" you have to juggle multiple factors, and it just ain't simple.
Part of the reason I specified a large area was so that some number of species could remain entirely within it. The areas you mention are most critical, but they're also vulnerable outside of those seasonal concentration times. I was also thinking in terms of preserving an adequate slice of the bottom of the food chain.
Spiffy. I'll have to dig deeper into the link later, I just glanced at it, now.
How well are these things working at preserving aquatic life? I would have expect that sheer area would have been a necessary ingredient, and that would end up involving international waters.
Do they have any reason to believe that there's drillable oil under any of these MPAs?
My own pet project, which will likely never happen, to preserve biodiversity...
Cordon off a large area of ocean, certainly >100 sq mi, likely at least 10 times that. Ideally that area would straddle the continental shelf too, I would guess. Within that area, NO FISHING, and enforce with lethal means, if necessary. Fish right along the borders, but no fishing inside, whatsoever.
I think it would work, though I'm probably lowballing the required area. But I suspect the real problems are political. The area required is so big that it can't be done by one nation, since it would slop out into international waters. It would have to be established by international treaty. Then enforcement would be a problem, especially with respect to non-signatories. No doubt multiple preserves in different ocean areas would be better/necessary, too.
I was surprised to hear about the "collapse of the Atlantic cod fisheries" as a past fact in the last month on NPR. We're in a heap of trouble, and doing nothing to extricate ourselves, other than some farming of fish like salmon, catfish, trout, and tilapia. I like my proposal, because it leaves the concept of fishing intact, but it attempts to protect fish.
I seem to remember hearing that the open source R300 drivers are finally making some headway. Obviously this is only n-1 generations obsolete instead of n, but it's an improvement.
But the point is well taken. If X moves on top of OpenGL, and if we don't have an adequate open source OpenGL to fit in there, we're in trouble.
Does it really depend on your "perceived intent" of the link, or on the "customary historical usage" of the link?
He mentioned the ego factor. If your source code is ugly, crufty, and buggy, and you let it out into the open, people will mock and deride you and your skills. While open source advocates like to talk about "thousands of eyes," I suspect pride and socialization have just as much to do with the code quality.
I guess I'll tone down the "mock and deride" statement a little. In the best world, people will constructively help you improve your skills. If you refuse or fail to learn, then they'll mock and deride - and ignore you, which is just as bad.
Perhaps the problem is that showing the existence of the "censored in the United States" button is censored in the United States.
I fear that in today's society, the Adelphi charter is irrelevant and misdirected.
Keep in mind the real priorties:
1: Corporate rights shall be preserved.
2: Corporate freedom of action shall be maximized.
3: Opportunity for revenue and profit shall not be impeded.
I just went to see "Why We Fight" this weekend, including a Q&A with the writer/director, afterward. To be short, sweet, and simple, it wasn't a rant against the Bush administration. They are merely the latest (and most willing?) phase in the rise to power of the military-industrial complex. The movie was a warning about corporatism, rooted in Ike's parting message about the military-industrial complex.
In retrospect, the Free Software movement is perhaps one of the most important ones in today's world. As far as I can tell, it is the ONLY major endeavour of modern life not utterly dominated by corporate interests. No wonder there is so much interest in things like the DMCA, DRM, HDMI, TPM, etc. I suspect the fine-tuning will be to push Free Sofware into the correct corral, so it's developments can continue to be harvested, yet at the same time make it irrelevant to day-today life.
You have the right to remain silent.
You have the right to listen to OUR material in the ways WE see fit, according to "historical usage," however WE define it.
You have the right to pay us over and over again for the same music.
You have the right to simply send us money, if you wish.
If you waive, exceed, or ignore these rights, you WILL be sued, whenever we get around to you.
Or that classic, Brent Spinor singing "Old Yellow Eyes is Back." My son's a bit of a Star Trek fan, and I looked into it a few years back. Out of print.
Imagine for a moment that Microsoft WINS, though the situation would no doubt be similar if Sony were to WIN.
Right now, Microsoft is subsidizing the XBox with other revenues, and I don't mean just game sales. If they were unfettered by competition, they'd bring their games division back to at least break-even. They'd be nuts to do anything else. They'd probably also cut development resource to the minimum - just enough to keep competition from forming. (Or they'd cut below that, and restaff once it became apparent that a new competitor was coming on.) Prices would rise, progress would slow. Kind of like the way DOS 3.3 stagnated, back before DRDOS heated things up, again.
But it's in all of our best interests that neither Sony nor Microsoft "WIN" this console war, at least not conclusively. It's better for us that any "win" be press-only, hotly disputed, and that in a few years we repeat this whole argument with the XBox3 and PS4. For that matter, it's best the Nintendo remain a player, too.
Having "a winner" in the conclusive sense, no matter who it is, is the worst option.
While I don't approve of the anti-science attitude, I think I can put a spin on it which makes it more understandable.
Science was supposed to make life better. By making things more efficient, it was supposed to make our biggest problem what to do with all of our leasure time. It was supposed to bring an era of plenty for all, and end poverty.
I know, sounds Pollyanna-ish.
But you know, thinking harder about it, I believe all of the Pollyanna stuff I just spouted is possible, and with today's technology. The problem occurred somewhere on the way from the scientists to the marketplace. I suspect that in today's world, there's plenty, and nobody need go without food, shelter, or clothing.
It's a distribution problem. It's also a marketplace problem. I suspect that the most important product in today's market place is - scarcity. Look at post-Katrina... Petrochemical supplies dropped by 10-15%, prices jumped 35%. Make less product, make more money. Look at the whole ??AA and DRM issues. In fact, the "duplication" aspect of publication is rendered effectively obsolete by modern technology. Rather than seeking a way to equitably fund artists and the editorial/promotional aspects of publication, the publication industries have placed their focus on restriction of publication.
We also have super-rich and poor. I'm clearly not one in favor of Communism/Socialism, I like the ability to improve my lot by hard work and self improvement. I don't question that some people earn and have more than others - it's the magnitude of the difference that bothers me, and the fact that the system is being gamed.
So science got filtered on its way to the people. Instead of plenty for all, we have absurd riches for some, and poverty still exists. Instead of more leasure time for workers, we have fewer jobs, and those who have them work more than before.
Unfortunately and unfairly, science gets much of the blame. The problem is really excess greed. Some greed is healthy and motivating. But just like a mature human being knows how much to eat, he/she should understand how much greed is good.
It adds a whole lot of value... for Intel.
Just like DRM is a really good thing... for content providers.
While I'd like to think this is the same great country I was born and grew up in, stuff like this SUCKS, along with a whole lot of other things. This sums up to leave me with the distinct impression that MY country has been sold, behind me. That little fear bubbling in the back of my mind is that it's beyond redemption.
Only if it "works."
By the subject of this whole article, for a whole segment of the marketplace, it's going to be considered "broken" already. Even at that, we gotten to the technical operability aspects, yet. If they can make sure that HDCP "just works" for everyone but geeks, they'll probably get DRM pushed into the market. But so far the only form of DRM I've seen hit the market that "just works" is traditional DVD CSS, and its scope was much more limited.
The part of "public domain" that during "Ashcroft vs (whoever)" argued before the Supreme Court asserted that Congress could do pretty much whatever it wanted with copyright, including pulling works out of the public domain and assigning copyright to a holder. The "limited" in the Constitution means pretty much whatever Congress wants it to mean. The intent of the framers appears to be pretty much washed over.
I think it more interesting that Disney got some of its best material out of the public domain to make into movies. Seems to me that part of their downhill slide, at least in terms of movies/cartoons, happened as they felt they'd fully plumbed the public domain, and moved on to works for-hire. IMHO the concept of a public domain, as a public resource to be enriched and used by all, is under-appreciated.
/usr/bin/ld (you neglected to give the internetfs mount point)/EvilExecutable
(One reason why "noexec" isn't terribly useful.)
It might look like admission of guilt, and thereby affect the court/patent cases?
Gives you real confidence in the 2008 election, doesn't it?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster eats the Great Pumpkin for dessert!
Nyahh! Nyaah!
But you know what bothers me most about your post... I pretty much agree with it. Plus, let me extrapolate what I quote from you in my Subject, and apply it to what's happening to my country, NOW. The current direction in the US with respect to science an religion just reminds me too much of what happened in the Muslim empire some centuries ago. They've never recovered. We're just starting the downhill path.
I've been on Adelphia and their incrementally-increasing price scale for several years. (In addition they have absurdly restrictive TOS.) It's been Adelphia or dial-up, until a month or 2 ago. DSL is finally available to me. From Verizon.
So the Verizon page qualifies me, and up until recently they offered me 768/128 for $15/mo for the first year, if I pay up-front. Good deal to me, 1/2 the rated speed of my cable, for 1/3 the price. (Actually, last I knew the cable was $45/mo. I haven't looked at a bill for a while, and I know the whole thing has gone up, but don't know the pieces.) Unfortunately they say nothing about month 13 and onward. For $180/yr I'd jump, and I'd tweak cron jobs to "emerge -atuvDNf" (It's that "f".) at night, and move my big bandwidth needs into the wee hours when they don't make me wait. But at the moment, I have no idea what the long-term price is, and I haven't been able to find anything on their web site. Today I navigated their phone trees, and found NOTHING in their list of options that gave me a place to find my answer, nor was their a way to talk to a real person.
Besides I took a look, and Verizon's TOS look no better than Adelphia's.
My big issue is getting DynDNS.org Mailhop Relay to deliver mail directly to me, and skip the silly pop box. Technically it's "running a server" and technically it's against TOS for both providers. But in fact it uses less of their resources than the approved method, and if correctly set up is no vulnerability or traffic issue.
Evil vs Evil
Isn't just about the whole modern American business model about building bottlenecks? Not the first, but today's shining example is that Microsoft has positioned itself as the bottleneck in buying a PC. (the PC "tax"?) (single highest profit part, only part unfettered by competition) The whole patent system has been perverted to where it's no longer used by business (and run by the government) to foster innovation, and everything about creating bottlenecks and tollbooths. Look at the number of things we pay for, like music/movies, etc that are changing from pay-to-obtain to monthly intravenous money drips.
This has very little to do with bandwidth, and much more to do with Google's stock price, and Verizon's envy. (Google's market cap is greater than IBM's.)
There may be another reason for restricting the developer set. Keep in mind that this isn't a general restriction, it's only in the area of DRM.
From what I remember, DVD CSS was cracked because one company used a weak key. That key was SO bad it was fairly easy to brute-force, and then there were more fundamental weaknesses that allowed them to extract the other keys, given the first one.
Had there never been a weak key, perhaps DVD John never would have gotten his 15 minutes of fame.
So perhaps this DRM developer restriction is to make sure that nobody makes a weak key, that they do a better job of educating this smaller set of developers.