2) DRM is not somehow unethical. The people who don't follow copyright law are unethical. In this sense, the RIAA is ethical to the extreme. Forcing a lack of DRM still implicitly condones piracy. The number of people who will buy something they can get for free "because it's the right thing to do" is a very small percentage of the total poplation. You can't really expect to make a lot of money selling what's available for free.
Man, you just do NOT get the point do you? Either that or you are extremely brainwashed and close-minded.
Read my lips: DRM does *not* work. I never has and never will. It's a pipe dream. It's technologically impossible. Every single DRM scheme *ever* invented has been cracked. Why? Because DRM is the equivalent of protecting your house by locking the door and leaving the key under the doormat. It is security through obscurity.
And yes, DRM is by its very nature unethical. The only way it can be even attempted to be implemented in the first place is monopoly power over a given media -- monopoly power that prevents competitors from producing compatible players legally. That is part of why laws like the DMCA are so bad. It is morally wrong to outlaw certain speech/ideas because that speech could be used to commit a crime, just as it would be wrong to outlaw crowbars because they can be used to break into houses.
Furthermore, you make the thoughless assumption that people who ignore copyright laws are always being unethical. Guess what? Copyright laws are man-made and entirely relative. They are not a universal moral code. They are a very modern social invention intended to promote certain intellectual production ONLY when it is beneficial to society. That's it, nothing more! Publically shared information is not personal property and it cannot be stolen. It is mere greed and stupidity that have resulted in the corruption of relevant laws to the point where people have begun to ignore them altogether. (read: the vast majority of the US population with access to technology) That said, copyright can be good, but ONLY if it serves its intended purpose. That intended purpose, as established by the forefathers of the US, was to increase the amount of freely available information in the public domain by offering a *limited* time of exclusive rights. That compromise effectively no longer exists.
Another point you entirely miss is the fact that selling information isn't even a requirement for making a living off of it. This manufacturing era assumption is being utterly destroyed by modern technology and communication. Case in point: Open Source software will annihilate the proprietary industry within the next 10-15 years at its current rate of growth and adoption. Those involved make their money off of programming labor and consultancy, not imaginary "selling" of information. Similarly, most musicians today don't even make a significant profit from album sales compared to their live performances.
3b) Yes, I can say that I haven't found the DRM in iTMS files restrictive in the least. I can play them on both of my comptuers, and I can put them on my iPod.
Guess what? A growing number of us don't use Macs or Windows machines. And many of us can't afford a rip-off iPod compared to a $50 CD-MP3 unit. Neither do we feel like jumping through hoops to burn a CD from iTunes and then re-rip and re-encode to MP3. That is just plain retarded and it doesn't even stop people from then putting stuff on P2P networks.
Sorry, but you have thoroughly lost this argument on every point.
All single player games are pretty much a waste of time in my book. Why bother when you can enjoy video game time as a social time as well? (And I don't mean playing online with people you don't know and will never meet!)
I suspect that this is a straw man - "if I pay I must have full CD quality!"... even though day to day listening happens at a lower quality. Why bother? Is it Just In Case you need to re-encode?
Some of us have good ears and have spent a lot of money (or time) on building high quality sound systems. The difference between a 128kbps AAC or MP3 compared to an original CD is as drastic as the difference between a tape and CD on a good system. (less so for AAC, but it is still readily noticeable). So no, I will not buy low quality copies of music and neither will a lot of people. And if the RIAA folks stop selling CD's and only do crappy online compressed copies, guess what? They'll be even more reason to boycott them!
I can tell you right now, DVDs have DRM and I can certainly see the compression artifacts, and the menus and mandatory FBI warnings are lame. And yet, geeks buy DVDs like crazy. Can you say "double standard"?
You're right.. geeks that buy DVD's are very much hypocrites. You can't complain about corrupt laws and then turn around and fund the people who buy those laws to further lock in their monopolies.
Are we seeing the point yet, folks? On one extreme we have high quality expensive media. On the other extreme we have crappy media that people share (mostly illegally) for free. But any time that someone comes along and tries to put something in the middle, folks scream that there can only be two choices, and that any compromise is totally unacceptable.
You really don't have a point here because there has been no "middle compromise" offered yet. The new music services are almost as overpriced as CDs, the artists are still largely getting screwed (if they're with RIAA labels), and now the quality is lower too. What I suggested in my original post is a true compromise: pay musicians directly for a limited time, no DRM, full quality available, flexible pricing. People turned to P2P for two reasons: 1.) Because they realized both they and the artists were getting the shaft. 2.) Simply because nobody but the ultra-rich can afford to obtain 'legal' copies of all the music out there since our retarded copyright terms are now almost indefinite. Hello!? Building the public domain was the original *reason* for copyright! 14 years was a *good* length!
Guess what: people buy DVDs anyway. You are probably one of those people.
Nope. I wait for the $1.50 DVD rentals. Watching any movie more than about twice is a waste of life. Incidentally, DVD's effective no longer have DRM as even much popular commercial software circumvents it.
Deal with the compromise because the RIAA is never going to just put WAVs online for free, so you'll have to compromise on DRM or price or quality, or some combination of all three.
Or I can boycott the RIAA altogether and directly support independent artists, of which there are increasingly number and quality. Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that many musicians have made millions via touring and don't even need to sell the music itself.
The rest of the world will buy lower quality DRMd media at a lower cost.
Only people with your defeatist attitude.
The only remaining question is, which compromise will be acceptable (not ideal) for all parties?
What I originally suggested would be acceptable to all parties but the RIAA. Forget them, if they don't want to participate in an ethical new industry.
1) Nevertheless, some artists are with the RIAA. Many of these are popular. To not include them in a service's offering is simply not a good business decision.
It depends on what the purpose is. A "good business decision" is not always a good ethical decision -- and there is plenty reason the RIAA needs boycotted out of existance. Regardless, the RIAA bands already have their voice. This is all about alternatives. (and encouraging former RIAA bands to jump ship of course!)
2) To the RIAA, yes.
Which is fine. If they don't want to play by ethical rules, they can be left out.
3) Is the compression ratio as good as MP3/AAC? Does it support DRM? You're not going to get a legal music service that distributes files without DRM. What's the point?
FLAC is a lossless codec and has roughly an average 2:1 compression ratio. MP3/AAC achieve their high compression ratios by dropping data (and therefore sacrificing quality). I personally can hear the difference and there are many others who can as well. Yes, you do need quality stereo equipment often times, but there are plenty of people who don't feel like listening on their tinny PC speakers. Additionally, using AAC and then having to recompress to MP3 to use on your portable player greatly increases the risk of compression artifacts showing up that would NOT have been present if you had ripped a CD or if you had a lossless source like FLAC. Something like FLAC need not be the default format for an online music service, but it *should* be available for those who want the same quality as a CD.
DRM has nothing to do with codecs. You can wrap DRM around any codec. But no, you do not need DRM to succeed with a legal music service unless you limit yourself to the likes of the RIAA idiots. DRM absolutely never works -- it is only the braindead business executives who don't understand technology that keep insisting upon it. And DRM is *always* a hastle for consumers. To say that "oh well, I guess we'll have to put it up it" is a really defeatist attitude when there is so much potential for change.
5) Yes, but you still put the BitTorrent file on a website! If you want publicity and to allow free downloads, you don't need a music distro system for it.
This is true. But a music service can also be a good publicity tool in itself. Eventually, other services for musicians like tour scheduling, etc. may be possible.
6) Well, it obviously depends on how you do the encrypting. But no, public key encryption is not my area of expertise. I know how it works in theory, though. Doesn't it involve a decent amount of processor overhead? Don't people complain that iTunes uses too much CPU as it is? I don't know how exactly that's encrypted, though.
Encryption overhead is negligible on modern CPU's and has nothing to do with why iTunes is slow. That would be mostly the AAC codec, incidentally! But of course, if you want to eliminate that overhead and allow customers to use alternative media players that are faster and better, you have to get rid of the DRM crap.
7) It may be good for the musicians, but it woulldn't be good for the distro site. With few exceptions (album-only tracks), every track is 99 cents on iTMS. This makes the prices for every track appealing, not just some of them.
$.99 could still be a top limit, but a new musician's work may not demand that high of a price. More room for competition is always good.
Not to slam you, but I'm going to have to slam your comment.
Not to slam you, but I'm going to have to point out how every single thing you said was either misinformed, closed-minded, or entirely missing my point.
1.) What? You want who? Nah, they're too popular and well-known.
Did I ever say popularity was bad? No. I said that RIAA-label music should be boycotted. Musicians don't need the RIAA labels to become popular anymore and it is in their best interest to avoid them.
2.) Yes, this music distro condones illegal file sharing.
So you're saying that a lack of consumer-unfriendly DRM "condones illegal filesharing"? That doesn't make the slightest amount of sense. So do ordinary CD's (which lack DRM) "condone illegal filesharing"? Or how about FM radio? And FYI, attempts at DRM have *never* worked, nor will they ever. By your line of reasoning, crow bars should be outlawed because crooks can use them to open locked doors. Never mind the fact that I just need one to tear down an old shed in my backyard.
3.) FLAC? What's that? Uh, yeah.... you can play that with any player you want.
Apple iTMS-encrypted AAC? What is that? Uh, yeah.... you have to install new software to play that too. And portability? Sorry, you can ONLY play them back on your overpriced iPod unless you first burn a CD, then re-rip, then make MP3's. How convenient! FYI, FLAC is a patent-free, lossless audio codec that is available for all platforms.
4.) You're an artist? Quick, get your lawyer! (What would this mean for the customers?)
This comment doesn't even seem to have a point. Yes, it is fully possible to contract that your copyright shall expire early. There's nothing wrong with that. What would it mean for customers? Simple: the music they buy can be legally re-distributed after 5 years. (a very reasonable time to compensate an artist)
5.) Because BitTorrents on websites just don't work.
I guess that's why Bittorrent is becoming so popular lately and why even major video game companies are using it to distribute demos and patches.
6.) Especially the part that encrypts/decrypts your credit card information. See also: packet sniffer.
Most e-commerce is conducted using at least some Open Source software. You very much DO want the crypto code to be open if you are concerned about security. By your statement it is clear that you do not understand how public-key encryption works. Secrets are not stored in the software itself. I suggest you do some reading.
7.) 99 cents a track? Come on! We just pick random numbers!
Again, this comment makes no point. Yes, musicians should be able to set their own prices and not be forced into a pre-determined per-track rate. What is the problem with that?
Weaseliest Behavior was 'Blaming fast food restaurants for making you fat.
What is far more disturbing than people getting fat on fast food is skinny people (who can otherwise handle the calories) getting clogged arteries because of it. And *this* is a preventable situation.
In brief: To make it last longer, the vegetable oil used for frying by all the major fast food joints (and unfortunately most other restaurants too) is hydrogenated. This is an inferior and outdated process that creates trans-fatty acids. Trans-fatty acids clog arteries like nothing else. It's significantly worse than eating animal lard.
Incidentally, this is not just a problem for restaurants. Any processed food that has "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" or "shortening" has at least some trans fats.
Since the early 80's, it has been known through research that trans-fats are really bad. In response, improved processes have been created to eliminate trans-fat production. However, after all this time, most restaurants and food processors have still not switched to the healthier oils because (3 guesses....) it would cut into their profit margins. The better oils are currently more expensive because they are in less supply (due to insufficient demand!)
So, while I have little sympathy for somebody getting fat from eating McD's every day, I do for the uninformed skinny person who thought they could get away with eating certain restaurant and processed foods. It is estimated that at least 30,000 premature deaths occur each year because of the prevalence of hydrogenated oils in the American diet. See the Harvard study below.
For more information: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews/ transfats.html http://www.bantransfats.com/
Somebody mod this up.. This is something that all geeks need to read if they haven't already. I personally have changed my diet significantly, being one of those skinny folk who previously thought they were safe.
Actually, as an artist, I am in the process of signing up on the Apple Store. I get 91% of everything sold on the Apple store. This is an ubelievable return. 91%??
That's because you're independent. However, the bulk of the music sold on iTunes is RIAA crap and the *typical* musician only gets about 10% in that case. So yes, iTunes is good in the sense that it proves that online distribution is possible. But it is bad because it still supports RIAA labels.
I don't want people to have free use of my music. I like the way Apple has it hammered out. You can burn as many CDs of playlists as you want, as long as you change it once every ten times.
Then I don't want your music. The whole DRM thing is bad for consumers, bad for personal freedom, and ultimately bad for you. And by the way, it's so easily circumvented anyhow.
And I would be utterly surprised if you could hear the difference between a 128 bit AAC file and an uncompressed file. You would be almost like Superman.
I can hear the difference. It's quite obvious in some tracks. Maybe you've been playing with your amp too high.
You can't ever get everything you want, unless you steal it. Because this is my hard work put into this music, I don't want it stolen from me. The problem with thievery is you gain no appreciation for the work it takes ot create and produce this music. I had to pay several thousands of dollars to finish my album, and you expect me to just hand it out? Dumb.
You have the same clueless line of reasoning as the idiots at the RIAA. First of all, someone who copies your work against your will is not stealing from you. They may not be able to afford it, they may be sampling it, or they may not feel it is worth what you are charging. Furthermore, it's not theft to begin with. Information cannot be stolen and until you get over that nonsense, you'll only be frustrated by the impossibility of stopping the inevitable. That couple thousand you spent on producing your album is nothing. If you do live performances, which you should if you're going to survive, that is extremely cheap advertising. If your music is really that good, make it known by taking advantage of every means of free distribution. Otherwise, you have no chance to compete with the advertising of the big guys and without advertising, how are you going to make the big bucks on live performances?
I like the Apple Music store. You have set your own limitations by your ignorance and closed mindedness.
You have set your own limitations by your silly ignorance that heavy control is the only way to make money on producing information.
This is a great service to musicians, a great product for fans, and a great way for me to make a living. If I can only get people to buy my music, which is the real battle now that Apple has driven one hard road for me.
I would never buy your music on iTunes. #1. Because it only works on Mac and Windows. #2. Because I cannot get a full quality copy. As previously stated, AAC is not acceptable to me.
It's not even worth arguing which one is better, because all of these new music services are unacceptable for several reasons:
1. they all largely support RIAA music 2. each has its own stupid DRM scheme, even if a weak one, that is a hastle for consumers 3. they are platform limited and not Open Source (after all, you can't have DRM otherwise) 4. most importantly: they still do not give musicians a fair deal! ie.) at most 10% of sales.
The characteristics of a good online music service would be:
1.) Only non-RIAA affiliated or independent artists 2.) No DRM whatsoever, besides charging your account for the initial access 3.) Option to download in a lossless compressed format (like FLAC) 4.) Contract with all artists that the music published via this service shall enter a non-restrictive Creative Commons license in at most 5 years (or after a sales target is reached) or else go public domain. 5.) A free-downloads section for artists who realize it makes more sense to use recordings as a marketing tool for their live performances. This should be bittorrent-based to alleviate some bandwidth needs. 6.) All clients are open source and based on standard, open protocols. 7.) Artists directly receive at least 75% of the sales and are allowed to set their own per-track or per-album prices.
That would be a service I would love to use. Let us not accept anything less!
If you embed xmlrpc_c in your application server, you can simply send xml-rpc requests from your PHP script or pages.
I'm currently planning to transition the software I develop to a more robust 3-tier architecture. PHP will definitely be used for the standard web client and I am planning alternative clients written in Qt and also perhaps for handhelds. What do you think about writing that xmlrpc-capable application server in PHP? Is PHP up to the task or should I look elsewhere. As this is for a free software project, proprietary Java-based solutions are not an option.
What'd be really nice is if there was some sort of existing framework for building this application server.. but alas, everyone in the OSS community seems hung-up on crappy 2-tier design. Hopefully I'm just missing something! (:
The analysis is pretty complete, but where this article fails is not providing a counter analysis of how the evils of TC / DRM / closed internet / etc. can be fought. For every mis-use of the technology, there is a means to subvert it with a superior alternative. For example:
- Firewalled commercial internet access can be fought with community networks and co-ops, especially wireless. If a feasible ultra-wideband technology ever matures and is commercialized, the entire communications landscape will change seemingly overnight. Also, anything that promotes strong competition in the broadband access industry will make lack of restrictions (NAT) more of a selling point.
- DRM schemes can be fought by eliminating software monopolies. DRM cannot be implemented widespread without either monopoly power or government intervention. Practically speaking, this means using, supporting, and developing only Open Source software. Who will buy MS Office 200x with DRM if OpenOffice is just as good, is free, and becomes the dominant "business document" format.
- Personal ID certificates can be accomplished using standard PKI, certificate authorities, biometrics, etc. There is absolutely no need for DRM in the BIOS and operating system, nor any bizarre "secure internet" where only "trusted" data may pass. In fact, since DRM is *always* security through obscurity (black boxes), a truly open solution is far more secure anyhow. Please note that I am not advocating the use of personal ID for anything other than need-to-know scenarios.. financial transactions, contracts, etc.
Cripes people. There are no commercials on TV about Mozilla or Opera. There are very few (if any) hints to Mozilla's existence on the mainstream news. You have to visit Slashdot to be blasted with Mo's zealotry. So tell me, how's anybody even supposed to know it exists?
Microsoft gained their IE monopoly by including it with Windows. Most people are lazy and don't look for alternatives--they just use what's already installed. However, if a *simple* alternative is presented, most are willing to give it a try. I have personally found that people who try Mozilla don't go back. They key is presenting issues that matter to ordinary users so that they'll listen. This is where a grassroots Mozilla promotion campaign needs to focus. Sometimes you even need to talk their language: "Dude, IE really sucks. You should try Mozilla.. it lets you block all those annoying pop-ups and it doesn't get infected with Microsoft viruses"
Probably the most powerful tool of conversion is the workplace. If IT managers can be convinced to implement only Mozilla, workers will become familiar with its goodness and want the same thing at home. Heck, even send out a memo telling workers how they can use Mozilla at home or pass out free CD's with the Windoze binary installer. This kind of user-to-user marketing is far more powerful than anything MS possesses. As Napster proved, word-of-mouth can spread very quickly.
Contrary to your claim, most technical/power users are fully aware of Netscape 7 at least, and aren't really all that impressed.
Anyone who willingly uses MSIE instead of Mozilla / NS / Firebird after becoming "fully aware" of them is neither technical nor a power user; they're an idiot. This is not a question of person opinion or design preference--this is provable fact. IE has lousy W3C standards compliance compared to the Gecko engine. End of story.
If you really want to get into details, Mozilla has more useful options/features, renders faster, and has a better security record too. But those are all (arguably) secondary to properly supporting established Internet standards.
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants
on
Why Only Music?
·
· Score: 1
In my view, this statement is almost laughable. What's the purpose of it? To justify theft? That's a very, very slippery slope indeed.
In fact, the MPAA has NOT provided a legitimate alternative, nor are they ever likely to. If movie prices were not so outrageously high, you would not see people swapping them on P2P networks. Simple fact: movies are a total rip off and consumers have begun to grow wise to this. Go do some research for yourself. If movies went public domain the moment they left the theaters, hollywood would still be making a 300-400% profit. (although they arrange their books to portray otherwise, screw certain people out of royalties, etc.)
And cut the nonsense propaganda wording like "theft" and "slippery slope". Copyright is a social compromise, not an assignment of property ownership. It is perfectly reasonable for consumers to question that compromise when it swings as far out of balance as it is today.
Fortunately, the increasing success of independent film-making is going to kill the MPAA regardless. Once the cartel fall apart, the wheels of the free market will turn again. Until then, the best option is to boycott MPAA material altogether to help speed the process.
Should Microsoft's software be treated any differently than, say, automobiles?
If software should be protected as free speech, as most everyone around here agrees, then the obvioius answer to this question is, Yes.
If Microsoft can be sued for flaws in its software, so can everyone else. And "everyone else" does not have the money to defend themselves. There are many ways to fight Microsoft's monopoly. This is NOT one of them.
No - AC can transmit power efficiently over long distances, whereas DC has huge transmission losses.
It's not that DC in itself has higher transmission losses than AC. The reason AC is used is that its voltage can be efficiently stepped up and down (with transformers), whereas DC cannot. Given a fixed resistance in the wires, you cut power losses if you can transmit with higher voltage and inversely proportional lower current. It's basic ohms law. Current through resistance is what causes power loss.
Actually, given the same power and voltage, there are greater losses with AC transmission than DC because the transmission line resistance is reactive (complex). However, the drastic reduction in simple resistance losses outweighs this enough to make AC still the most efficient choice.
Unless it's for a big company, keep the honor system in mind as a possibility. Say you have Widget version n and somebody contacts you asking for some paid development. The features they're requesting would have been added at some point anyhow, but now you have incentive to add them now (possibly deviating a little from your original development plan). Negotiate a price. Develop the features. Release version n+1. If the person/company who asked for the feature(s) is at all honorable, they'll pay up. Most likely you'll already know something about them anyhow if they've ever posted to your message board or email lists. If they don't pay up, it's really their loss because they'll never again be able to ask for more work done and you can easily censor them from the message boards if they ask for help. I've never had this problem though. Most people are honest when it comes to this sort of thing.
But remember, this is for small-time work only. You wouldn't do it this way if you wanted to make a full-time career solely out of OSS development. And if it's a job worth over say $1k, it's probably time to think about formal contracts.
Maybe prior art searches will improve once the USPTO moves into the new two million square foot USPTO campus, which includes five interconnected buildings, a twelve-story atrium, a landscaped two-acre park, and a museum.
Many years ago, Thomas Jefferson supposedly kept the US patent records in a shoebox under his bed. In those days, patents were actually examined with great scrutiny.. sometimes even to the point of testing inventions to see if they really worked as advertised. Nowadays, they're mostly rubber-stamped by government employees who don't give a damn and it takes a 2 million sq. ft. campus to contain this monstrous bureaucracy. Time for an overhaul it would seem...
http://earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jeffer so n.html
Well, they've not actually developed these cells yet, but here's why the need exists:
Lets do the math.. We have $4 / watt for current generation solar cells which last 20 years..
Suppose that a "1 watt" solar cell can produce that 1 watt from 10am to 6pm each day (8 hours) in the average installation (unless you live in Pittsburgh or Seattle!:) We'll call that the average because it won't usually put out 1W and yet it'll always produce at least some power. Therefore, said solar cell produces 8 Watt-hour's of energy each day.
8Wh x 365 days x 20 years / (1000W / 1kW) = 58.4 kilowatt-hours during the lifespan of the cell.
$4 / 58.4 = $0.0685 / kWh
My local electric utility costs about $0.10 / kWh, making solar sound cheaper. However, the cost of the individual cells is only half the cost of a solar installation. Once you add in the cost of storage batteries, a charge controller, a high-efficiency DC->AC inverter, etc. now your solar installation is typically MORE expensive than the utility! And it's worse for the environment too with the silicon production chemicals, lead-acid batteries, etc. Yuck!
In contrast, if ST can even reach half their goal and produce $0.40 / watt cells, now we're looking at $0.00685 / kWh for the cells themselves. Even if battery storage technology is not improved by then, at least you can supplement your utility needs during the day at very minimal cost!
For the others of you who did not RTFA, I would also like to point out that the CCAGW was not criticizing the value of using open-source open-source itself
Maybe you ought to RTFA again. It appears that you missed this line: "Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software." This statement, incidentally, is a flat out lie, and is NOT backed by any reputable studies. I, offhand, question their motives for printing this.
If they were excluding all competitors to the benefit of a for-profit corporation (Microsoft would be a good example), the criticism would be the same, and the process would be unethical at best, illegal at worst. Why is it suddenly alright to do the same thing with open-source vendors and projects?
I think there's a big difference there. Mandating Open Source software or standards would not be explicitly excluding any competitors. It would only be excluding the closed-source philosophy, which, especially in the context of public affairs, is certainly a worthy cause. Being a taxpayer, I don't want my taxes being used to make some person or company richer without seeing any public benefits myself. That is what using proprietary software does. On the other hand, if a government funds or contracts Open Source development and procurement, this not only meets its own needs, but also increases the public wealth of information. Using Open Source software not only saves money but produces a better public good for the taxdollars spent.
Here's an analogy: Say a government wants to contract some scientific or medical research to help better the life of it's citizens. Would it be wrong to insist that results of that research would be freely available to the scientific community and thereby the taxpayers who paid to have that research done? That's not socialism, it's simple ethics. The technologically advanced world we live in today was made possible by the high efficiency of "Open Science" if you will--the sharing of discovery so that all may benefit. Would anyone today complain of anti-competitive practice if a government excluded from research grants those who refused to use the scientific method or properly document their findings?
As a sidenote, our nation was founded with the principle that a flourishing "public domain" of art, invention, and information was something to be desired. That's why copyrights and patents were only allowed for a very short time and were only considered as a compromise to help meet a greater goal.
Here lies the problem: 1) Cheap 2) Fast 3) Secure Pick 2
Cheap should really be "developed with few man-hours" in this generalized statement. In a sense, good OSS is "highly expensive".. we're just fortunate enough to have enough men/women doing their part to help out.. or in the case of OpenSSL/SSH, perhaps not quite enough.
On the other hand, programming in a truly secure fashion from day one dramatically reduces the work to secure the software later on. So maybe that generalization breaks down when you have good programmers?
If I volunteer to write software for free - or work for BK for free - someone else will be out of a job. Why would BK pay people to do what others will do for free? If everyone is working for free, how much money is going to be available? NONE!! Employed people are the people who spend money that is used to employ people who spend money that is used to employ... etc. Giving your labor away for free is not only stupid, it's detrimental to the economy as a whole. All it does is decrease the average value of labor overall.
You clearly have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what free / Open Source software is all about. It is NOT about getting a free lunch. It is NOT about "oh, I'll just give away all my hard work for no reason at all". Open Source is about meeting your needs in the most efficient way possible. In the world of information, the most efficient way for everyone to meet their needs is to collaborate on producing the information they need. Here's something that might shock you: I, personally, make money writing free software. And I make even more money providing complete solutions using both the software I have written and software written by other consultants / developers like me. And, at the same time, I'm saving the businesses and non-profit groups I work with a boatload of money they would have spent on proprietary software. But guess what? Since they're spending less on licenses, I can charge MORE for my services and still give them a huge discount compared to my competitors who rely on MS and other proprietary garbage.
So, what if the whole proprietary software industry collapses? (and it will eventually..) Does that mean there are no more jobs for programmers? Heck no! It just means the jobs will be found elsewhere.. either in specialized fields or doing the same kind of consulting work I do. (And let me tell you, it's a lot more socially rewarding to deal with people one-on-one than to work 50+ hour weeks in a cubical farm.) Similarly, as free software becomes more abundant, it becomes increasingly beneficial for companies to hire in-house developers to extend that free software to meet their specific needs. Once again, jobs don't disappear, they just move and evolve.
The economy is gradually becoming more efficient. You can't change that. Innovate or be left behind.
Presumably the programmers who take up this challenge would have to be unemployed to have any effect on unemployment, and only then after they complete these sci fi programs and give them away, with employment then consisting of any money coming from mods and service which may result (in other words, standard open source philosophy).
And what is wrong with that? I was previously an unemployed engineer / programmer. I now have a quickly expanding consulting business based on the philosophy you and the parent poster deem "not clueful of economics". And I'm helping small businesses and non-profit groups on a level that the big proprietary guys can't even begin to compete. Don't be so quick to make assumptions.
This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
This is just plain poor journalism. Take a hike CmdrTaco. You're not doing anybody a favor by posting lies and FUD. (or, then again.. Slashdot DOES run a lot of M$ ads these days, doesn't it.. maybe I should take my readership elsewhere, eh?)
Seriously. Why would he post a totally unfounded comment suggesting that geeks "jump ship" from Linux? Folks, write this stuff off as BS and go out there and make a difference. Stop reading/. and start coding. That's the only way things are going to move faster towards what we all want. Open Source is already exploding in popularity worldwide. The sooner we can move that growth to the US, the sooner we won't even have to think of M$ any more. Get to it!
My belief is that Unix and Linux should co-exist and should look and feel the same to application developers.
It's pretty silly that people still espouse this viewpoint. Every flavour of proprietary Unix is quickly dying. Linux and BSD have become technical equals and there is simply no more need for the remaining non-free "true Unix" relics. (nor is there any real money left in maintaining them) Expensive proprietary unices are why Microsoft won the desktop and was poised to conquer the server as well, had the free alternatives not risen up to save the day.
Proprietary "Unix" is dead. End of story. There's no need to co-exist. Out with the old, in with the new. That's progress.
Slashdot Mirror
2) DRM is not somehow unethical. The people who don't follow copyright law are unethical. In this sense, the RIAA is ethical to the extreme. Forcing a lack of DRM still implicitly condones piracy. The number of people who will buy something they can get for free "because it's the right thing to do" is a very small percentage of the total poplation. You can't really expect to make a lot of money selling what's available for free.
Man, you just do NOT get the point do you? Either that or you are extremely brainwashed and close-minded.
Read my lips: DRM does *not* work. I never has and never will. It's a pipe dream. It's technologically impossible. Every single DRM scheme *ever* invented has been cracked. Why? Because DRM is the equivalent of protecting your house by locking the door and leaving the key under the doormat. It is security through obscurity.
And yes, DRM is by its very nature unethical. The only way it can be even attempted to be implemented in the first place is monopoly power over a given media -- monopoly power that prevents competitors from producing compatible players legally. That is part of why laws like the DMCA are so bad. It is morally wrong to outlaw certain speech/ideas because that speech could be used to commit a crime, just as it would be wrong to outlaw crowbars because they can be used to break into houses.
Furthermore, you make the thoughless assumption that people who ignore copyright laws are always being unethical. Guess what? Copyright laws are man-made and entirely relative. They are not a universal moral code. They are a very modern social invention intended to promote certain intellectual production ONLY when it is beneficial to society. That's it, nothing more! Publically shared information is not personal property and it cannot be stolen. It is mere greed and stupidity that have resulted in the corruption of relevant laws to the point where people have begun to ignore them altogether. (read: the vast majority of the US population with access to technology) That said, copyright can be good, but ONLY if it serves its intended purpose. That intended purpose, as established by the forefathers of the US, was to increase the amount of freely available information in the public domain by offering a *limited* time of exclusive rights. That compromise effectively no longer exists.
Another point you entirely miss is the fact that selling information isn't even a requirement for making a living off of it. This manufacturing era assumption is being utterly destroyed by modern technology and communication. Case in point: Open Source software will annihilate the proprietary industry within the next 10-15 years at its current rate of growth and adoption. Those involved make their money off of programming labor and consultancy, not imaginary "selling" of information. Similarly, most musicians today don't even make a significant profit from album sales compared to their live performances.
3b) Yes, I can say that I haven't found the DRM in iTMS files restrictive in the least. I can play them on both of my comptuers, and I can put them on my iPod.
Guess what? A growing number of us don't use Macs or Windows machines. And many of us can't afford a rip-off iPod compared to a $50 CD-MP3 unit. Neither do we feel like jumping through hoops to burn a CD from iTunes and then re-rip and re-encode to MP3. That is just plain retarded and it doesn't even stop people from then putting stuff on P2P networks.
Sorry, but you have thoroughly lost this argument on every point.
All single player games are pretty much a waste of time in my book. Why bother when you can enjoy video game time as a social time as well? (And I don't mean playing online with people you don't know and will never meet!)
I suspect that this is a straw man - "if I pay I must have full CD quality!"... even though day to day listening happens at a lower quality. Why bother? Is it Just In Case you need to re-encode?
Some of us have good ears and have spent a lot of money (or time) on building high quality sound systems. The difference between a 128kbps AAC or MP3 compared to an original CD is as drastic as the difference between a tape and CD on a good system. (less so for AAC, but it is still readily noticeable). So no, I will not buy low quality copies of music and neither will a lot of people. And if the RIAA folks stop selling CD's and only do crappy online compressed copies, guess what? They'll be even more reason to boycott them!
I can tell you right now, DVDs have DRM and I can certainly see the compression artifacts, and the menus and mandatory FBI warnings are lame. And yet, geeks buy DVDs like crazy. Can you say "double standard"?
You're right.. geeks that buy DVD's are very much hypocrites. You can't complain about corrupt laws and then turn around and fund the people who buy those laws to further lock in their monopolies.
Are we seeing the point yet, folks? On one extreme we have high quality expensive media. On the other extreme we have crappy media that people share (mostly illegally) for free. But any time that someone comes along and tries to put something in the middle, folks scream that there can only be two choices, and that any compromise is totally unacceptable.
You really don't have a point here because there has been no "middle compromise" offered yet. The new music services are almost as overpriced as CDs, the artists are still largely getting screwed (if they're with RIAA labels), and now the quality is lower too. What I suggested in my original post is a true compromise: pay musicians directly for a limited time, no DRM, full quality available, flexible pricing. People turned to P2P for two reasons: 1.) Because they realized both they and the artists were getting the shaft. 2.) Simply because nobody but the ultra-rich can afford to obtain 'legal' copies of all the music out there since our retarded copyright terms are now almost indefinite. Hello!? Building the public domain was the original *reason* for copyright! 14 years was a *good* length!
Guess what: people buy DVDs anyway. You are probably one of those people.
Nope. I wait for the $1.50 DVD rentals. Watching any movie more than about twice is a waste of life. Incidentally, DVD's effective no longer have DRM as even much popular commercial software circumvents it.
Deal with the compromise because the RIAA is never going to just put WAVs online for free, so you'll have to compromise on DRM or price or quality, or some combination of all three.
Or I can boycott the RIAA altogether and directly support independent artists, of which there are increasingly number and quality. Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that many musicians have made millions via touring and don't even need to sell the music itself.
The rest of the world will buy lower quality DRMd media at a lower cost.
Only people with your defeatist attitude.
The only remaining question is, which compromise will be acceptable (not ideal) for all parties?
What I originally suggested would be acceptable to all parties but the RIAA. Forget them, if they don't want to participate in an ethical new industry.
1) Nevertheless, some artists are with the RIAA. Many of these are popular. To not include them in a service's offering is simply not a good business decision.
It depends on what the purpose is. A "good business decision" is not always a good ethical decision -- and there is plenty reason the RIAA needs boycotted out of existance. Regardless, the RIAA bands already have their voice. This is all about alternatives. (and encouraging former RIAA bands to jump ship of course!)
2) To the RIAA, yes.
Which is fine. If they don't want to play by ethical rules, they can be left out.
3) Is the compression ratio as good as MP3/AAC? Does it support DRM? You're not going to get a legal music service that distributes files without DRM. What's the point?
FLAC is a lossless codec and has roughly an average 2:1 compression ratio. MP3/AAC achieve their high compression ratios by dropping data (and therefore sacrificing quality). I personally can hear the difference and there are many others who can as well. Yes, you do need quality stereo equipment often times, but there are plenty of people who don't feel like listening on their tinny PC speakers. Additionally, using AAC and then having to recompress to MP3 to use on your portable player greatly increases the risk of compression artifacts showing up that would NOT have been present if you had ripped a CD or if you had a lossless source like FLAC. Something like FLAC need not be the default format for an online music service, but it *should* be available for those who want the same quality as a CD.
DRM has nothing to do with codecs. You can wrap DRM around any codec. But no, you do not need DRM to succeed with a legal music service unless you limit yourself to the likes of the RIAA idiots. DRM absolutely never works -- it is only the braindead business executives who don't understand technology that keep insisting upon it. And DRM is *always* a hastle for consumers. To say that "oh well, I guess we'll have to put it up it" is a really defeatist attitude when there is so much potential for change.
5) Yes, but you still put the BitTorrent file on a website! If you want publicity and to allow free downloads, you don't need a music distro system for it.
This is true. But a music service can also be a good publicity tool in itself. Eventually, other services for musicians like tour scheduling, etc. may be possible.
6) Well, it obviously depends on how you do the encrypting. But no, public key encryption is not my area of expertise. I know how it works in theory, though. Doesn't it involve a decent amount of processor overhead? Don't people complain that iTunes uses too much CPU as it is? I don't know how exactly that's encrypted, though.
Encryption overhead is negligible on modern CPU's and has nothing to do with why iTunes is slow. That would be mostly the AAC codec, incidentally! But of course, if you want to eliminate that overhead and allow customers to use alternative media players that are faster and better, you have to get rid of the DRM crap.
7) It may be good for the musicians, but it woulldn't be good for the distro site. With few exceptions (album-only tracks), every track is 99 cents on iTMS. This makes the prices for every track appealing, not just some of them.
$.99 could still be a top limit, but a new musician's work may not demand that high of a price. More room for competition is always good.
Not to slam you, but I'm going to have to slam your comment.
Not to slam you, but I'm going to have to point out how every single thing you said was either misinformed, closed-minded, or entirely missing my point.
1.) What? You want who? Nah, they're too popular and well-known.
Did I ever say popularity was bad? No. I said that RIAA-label music should be boycotted. Musicians don't need the RIAA labels to become popular anymore and it is in their best interest to avoid them.
2.) Yes, this music distro condones illegal file sharing.
So you're saying that a lack of consumer-unfriendly DRM "condones illegal filesharing"? That doesn't make the slightest amount of sense. So do ordinary CD's (which lack DRM) "condone illegal filesharing"? Or how about FM radio? And FYI, attempts at DRM have *never* worked, nor will they ever. By your line of reasoning, crow bars should be outlawed because crooks can use them to open locked doors. Never mind the fact that I just need one to tear down an old shed in my backyard.
3.) FLAC? What's that? Uh, yeah.... you can play that with any player you want.
Apple iTMS-encrypted AAC? What is that? Uh, yeah.... you have to install new software to play that too. And portability? Sorry, you can ONLY play them back on your overpriced iPod unless you first burn a CD, then re-rip, then make MP3's. How convenient! FYI, FLAC is a patent-free, lossless audio codec that is available for all platforms.
4.) You're an artist? Quick, get your lawyer! (What would this mean for the customers?)
This comment doesn't even seem to have a point. Yes, it is fully possible to contract that your copyright shall expire early. There's nothing wrong with that. What would it mean for customers? Simple: the music they buy can be legally re-distributed after 5 years. (a very reasonable time to compensate an artist)
5.) Because BitTorrents on websites just don't work.
I guess that's why Bittorrent is becoming so popular lately and why even major video game companies are using it to distribute demos and patches.
6.) Especially the part that encrypts/decrypts your credit card information. See also: packet sniffer.
Most e-commerce is conducted using at least some Open Source software. You very much DO want the crypto code to be open if you are concerned about security. By your statement it is clear that you do not understand how public-key encryption works. Secrets are not stored in the software itself. I suggest you do some reading.
7.) 99 cents a track? Come on! We just pick random numbers!
Again, this comment makes no point. Yes, musicians should be able to set their own prices and not be forced into a pre-determined per-track rate. What is the problem with that?
Weaseliest Behavior was 'Blaming fast food restaurants for making you fat.
/ transfats.html
What is far more disturbing than people getting fat on fast food is skinny people (who can otherwise handle the calories) getting clogged arteries because of it. And *this* is a preventable situation.
In brief: To make it last longer, the vegetable oil used for frying by all the major fast food joints (and unfortunately most other restaurants too) is hydrogenated. This is an inferior and outdated process that creates trans-fatty acids. Trans-fatty acids clog arteries like nothing else. It's significantly worse than eating animal lard.
Incidentally, this is not just a problem for restaurants. Any processed food that has "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" or "shortening" has at least some trans fats.
Since the early 80's, it has been known through research that trans-fats are really bad. In response, improved processes have been created to eliminate trans-fat production. However, after all this time, most restaurants and food processors have still not switched to the healthier oils because (3 guesses....) it would cut into their profit margins. The better oils are currently more expensive because they are in less supply (due to insufficient demand!)
So, while I have little sympathy for somebody getting fat from eating McD's every day, I do for the uninformed skinny person who thought they could get away with eating certain restaurant and processed foods. It is estimated that at least 30,000 premature deaths occur each year because of the prevalence of hydrogenated oils in the American diet. See the Harvard study below.
For more information:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/reviews
http://www.bantransfats.com/
Somebody mod this up.. This is something that all geeks need to read if they haven't already. I personally have changed my diet significantly, being one of those skinny folk who previously thought they were safe.
Actually, as an artist, I am in the process of signing up on the Apple Store. I get 91% of everything sold on the Apple store. This is an ubelievable return. 91%??
That's because you're independent. However, the bulk of the music sold on iTunes is RIAA crap and the *typical* musician only gets about 10% in that case. So yes, iTunes is good in the sense that it proves that online distribution is possible. But it is bad because it still supports RIAA labels.
I don't want people to have free use of my music. I like the way Apple has it hammered out. You can burn as many CDs of playlists as you want, as long as you change it once every ten times.
Then I don't want your music. The whole DRM thing is bad for consumers, bad for personal freedom, and ultimately bad for you. And by the way, it's so easily circumvented anyhow.
And I would be utterly surprised if you could hear the difference between a 128 bit AAC file and an uncompressed file. You would be almost like Superman.
I can hear the difference. It's quite obvious in some tracks. Maybe you've been playing with your amp too high.
You can't ever get everything you want, unless you steal it. Because this is my hard work put into this music, I don't want it stolen from me. The problem with thievery is you gain no appreciation for the work it takes ot create and produce this music. I had to pay several thousands of dollars to finish my album, and you expect me to just hand it out? Dumb.
You have the same clueless line of reasoning as the idiots at the RIAA. First of all, someone who copies your work against your will is not stealing from you. They may not be able to afford it, they may be sampling it, or they may not feel it is worth what you are charging. Furthermore, it's not theft to begin with. Information cannot be stolen and until you get over that nonsense, you'll only be frustrated by the impossibility of stopping the inevitable. That couple thousand you spent on producing your album is nothing. If you do live performances, which you should if you're going to survive, that is extremely cheap advertising. If your music is really that good, make it known by taking advantage of every means of free distribution. Otherwise, you have no chance to compete with the advertising of the big guys and without advertising, how are you going to make the big bucks on live performances?
I like the Apple Music store. You have set your own limitations by your ignorance and closed mindedness.
You have set your own limitations by your silly ignorance that heavy control is the only way to make money on producing information.
This is a great service to musicians, a great product for fans, and a great way for me to make a living. If I can only get people to buy my music, which is the real battle now that Apple has driven one hard road for me.
I would never buy your music on iTunes. #1. Because it only works on Mac and Windows. #2. Because I cannot get a full quality copy. As previously stated, AAC is not acceptable to me.
It's not even worth arguing which one is better, because all of these new music services are unacceptable for several reasons:
1. they all largely support RIAA music
2. each has its own stupid DRM scheme, even if a weak one, that is a hastle for consumers
3. they are platform limited and not Open Source (after all, you can't have DRM otherwise)
4. most importantly: they still do not give musicians a fair deal! ie.) at most 10% of sales.
The characteristics of a good online music service would be:
1.) Only non-RIAA affiliated or independent artists
2.) No DRM whatsoever, besides charging your account for the initial access
3.) Option to download in a lossless compressed format (like FLAC)
4.) Contract with all artists that the music published via this service shall enter a non-restrictive Creative Commons license in at most 5 years (or after a sales target is reached) or else go public domain.
5.) A free-downloads section for artists who realize it makes more sense to use recordings as a marketing tool for their live performances. This should be bittorrent-based to alleviate some bandwidth needs.
6.) All clients are open source and based on standard, open protocols.
7.) Artists directly receive at least 75% of the sales and are allowed to set their own per-track or per-album prices.
That would be a service I would love to use. Let us not accept anything less!
If you embed xmlrpc_c in your application server, you can simply send xml-rpc requests from your PHP script or pages.
I'm currently planning to transition the software I develop to a more robust 3-tier architecture. PHP will definitely be used for the standard web client and I am planning alternative clients written in Qt and also perhaps for handhelds. What do you think about writing that xmlrpc-capable application server in PHP? Is PHP up to the task or should I look elsewhere. As this is for a free software project, proprietary Java-based solutions are not an option.
What'd be really nice is if there was some sort of existing framework for building this application server.. but alas, everyone in the OSS community seems hung-up on crappy 2-tier design. Hopefully I'm just missing something! (:
The analysis is pretty complete, but where this article fails is not providing a counter analysis of how the evils of TC / DRM / closed internet / etc. can be fought. For every mis-use of the technology, there is a means to subvert it with a superior alternative. For example:
- Firewalled commercial internet access can be fought with community networks and co-ops, especially wireless. If a feasible ultra-wideband technology ever matures and is commercialized, the entire communications landscape will change seemingly overnight. Also, anything that promotes strong competition in the broadband access industry will make lack of restrictions (NAT) more of a selling point.
- DRM schemes can be fought by eliminating software monopolies. DRM cannot be implemented widespread without either monopoly power or government intervention. Practically speaking, this means using, supporting, and developing only Open Source software. Who will buy MS Office 200x with DRM if OpenOffice is just as good, is free, and becomes the dominant "business document" format.
- Personal ID certificates can be accomplished using standard PKI, certificate authorities, biometrics, etc. There is absolutely no need for DRM in the BIOS and operating system, nor any bizarre "secure internet" where only "trusted" data may pass. In fact, since DRM is *always* security through obscurity (black boxes), a truly open solution is far more secure anyhow. Please note that I am not advocating the use of personal ID for anything other than need-to-know scenarios.. financial transactions, contracts, etc.
Cripes people. There are no commercials on TV about Mozilla or Opera. There are very few (if any) hints to Mozilla's existence on the mainstream news. You have to visit Slashdot to be blasted with Mo's zealotry. So tell me, how's anybody even supposed to know it exists?
Microsoft gained their IE monopoly by including it with Windows. Most people are lazy and don't look for alternatives--they just use what's already installed. However, if a *simple* alternative is presented, most are willing to give it a try. I have personally found that people who try Mozilla don't go back. They key is presenting issues that matter to ordinary users so that they'll listen. This is where a grassroots Mozilla promotion campaign needs to focus. Sometimes you even need to talk their language: "Dude, IE really sucks. You should try Mozilla.. it lets you block all those annoying pop-ups and it doesn't get infected with Microsoft viruses"
Probably the most powerful tool of conversion is the workplace. If IT managers can be convinced to implement only Mozilla, workers will become familiar with its goodness and want the same thing at home. Heck, even send out a memo telling workers how they can use Mozilla at home or pass out free CD's with the Windoze binary installer. This kind of user-to-user marketing is far more powerful than anything MS possesses. As Napster proved, word-of-mouth can spread very quickly.
Contrary to your claim, most technical/power users are fully aware of Netscape 7 at least, and aren't really all that impressed.
Anyone who willingly uses MSIE instead of Mozilla / NS / Firebird after becoming "fully aware" of them is neither technical nor a power user; they're an idiot. This is not a question of person opinion or design preference--this is provable fact. IE has lousy W3C standards compliance compared to the Gecko engine. End of story.
If you really want to get into details, Mozilla has more useful options/features, renders faster, and has a better security record too. But those are all (arguably) secondary to properly supporting established Internet standards.
In my view, this statement is almost laughable. What's the purpose of it? To justify theft? That's a very, very slippery slope indeed.
In fact, the MPAA has NOT provided a legitimate alternative, nor are they ever likely to. If movie prices were not so outrageously high, you would not see people swapping them on P2P networks. Simple fact: movies are a total rip off and consumers have begun to grow wise to this. Go do some research for yourself. If movies went public domain the moment they left the theaters, hollywood would still be making a 300-400% profit. (although they arrange their books to portray otherwise, screw certain people out of royalties, etc.)
And cut the nonsense propaganda wording like "theft" and "slippery slope". Copyright is a social compromise, not an assignment of property ownership. It is perfectly reasonable for consumers to question that compromise when it swings as far out of balance as it is today.
Fortunately, the increasing success of independent film-making is going to kill the MPAA regardless. Once the cartel fall apart, the wheels of the free market will turn again. Until then, the best option is to boycott MPAA material altogether to help speed the process.
Should Microsoft's software be treated any differently than, say, automobiles?
If software should be protected as free speech, as most everyone around here agrees, then the obvioius answer to this question is, Yes.
If Microsoft can be sued for flaws in its software, so can everyone else. And "everyone else" does not have the money to defend themselves. There are many ways to fight Microsoft's monopoly. This is NOT one of them.
No - AC can transmit power efficiently over long distances, whereas DC has huge transmission losses.
It's not that DC in itself has higher transmission losses than AC. The reason AC is used is that its voltage can be efficiently stepped up and down (with transformers), whereas DC cannot. Given a fixed resistance in the wires, you cut power losses if you can transmit with higher voltage and inversely proportional lower current. It's basic ohms law. Current through resistance is what causes power loss.
Actually, given the same power and voltage, there are greater losses with AC transmission than DC because the transmission line resistance is reactive (complex). However, the drastic reduction in simple resistance losses outweighs this enough to make AC still the most efficient choice.
Unless it's for a big company, keep the honor system in mind as a possibility. Say you have Widget version n and somebody contacts you asking for some paid development. The features they're requesting would have been added at some point anyhow, but now you have incentive to add them now (possibly deviating a little from your original development plan). Negotiate a price. Develop the features. Release version n+1. If the person/company who asked for the feature(s) is at all honorable, they'll pay up. Most likely you'll already know something about them anyhow if they've ever posted to your message board or email lists. If they don't pay up, it's really their loss because they'll never again be able to ask for more work done and you can easily censor them from the message boards if they ask for help. I've never had this problem though. Most people are honest when it comes to this sort of thing.
But remember, this is for small-time work only. You wouldn't do it this way if you wanted to make a full-time career solely out of OSS development. And if it's a job worth over say $1k, it's probably time to think about formal contracts.
Maybe prior art searches will improve once the USPTO moves into the new two million square foot USPTO campus, which includes five interconnected buildings, a twelve-story atrium, a landscaped two-acre park, and a museum.
r so n.html
Many years ago, Thomas Jefferson supposedly kept the US patent records in a shoebox under his bed. In those days, patents were actually examined with great scrutiny.. sometimes even to the point of testing inventions to see if they really worked as advertised. Nowadays, they're mostly rubber-stamped by government employees who don't give a damn and it takes a 2 million sq. ft. campus to contain this monstrous bureaucracy. Time for an overhaul it would seem...
http://earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jeffe
Well, they've not actually developed these cells yet, but here's why the need exists:
:) We'll call that the average because it won't usually put out 1W and yet it'll always produce at least some power. Therefore, said solar cell produces 8 Watt-hour's of energy each day.
Lets do the math.. We have $4 / watt for current generation solar cells which last 20 years..
Suppose that a "1 watt" solar cell can produce that 1 watt from 10am to 6pm each day (8 hours) in the average installation (unless you live in Pittsburgh or Seattle!
8Wh x 365 days x 20 years / (1000W / 1kW) = 58.4 kilowatt-hours during the lifespan of the cell.
$4 / 58.4 = $0.0685 / kWh
My local electric utility costs about $0.10 / kWh, making solar sound cheaper. However, the cost of the individual cells is only half the cost of a solar installation. Once you add in the cost of storage batteries, a charge controller, a high-efficiency DC->AC inverter, etc. now your solar installation is typically MORE expensive than the utility! And it's worse for the environment too with the silicon production chemicals, lead-acid batteries, etc. Yuck!
In contrast, if ST can even reach half their goal and produce $0.40 / watt cells, now we're looking at $0.00685 / kWh for the cells themselves. Even if battery storage technology is not improved by then, at least you can supplement your utility needs during the day at very minimal cost!
This really works! I just tried it. At 4x speed, "The English Patient" actually held my interest!
OK, I'm off to try this on "Four Feathers".. I'll be back in 45min with the results...
For the others of you who did not RTFA, I would also like to point out that the CCAGW was not criticizing the value of using open-source open-source itself
Maybe you ought to RTFA again. It appears that you missed this line: "Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software." This statement, incidentally, is a flat out lie, and is NOT backed by any reputable studies. I, offhand, question their motives for printing this.
If they were excluding all competitors to the benefit of a for-profit corporation (Microsoft would be a good example), the criticism would be the same, and the process would be unethical at best, illegal at worst. Why is it suddenly alright to do the same thing with open-source vendors and projects?
I think there's a big difference there. Mandating Open Source software or standards would not be explicitly excluding any competitors. It would only be excluding the closed-source philosophy, which, especially in the context of public affairs, is certainly a worthy cause. Being a taxpayer, I don't want my taxes being used to make some person or company richer without seeing any public benefits myself. That is what using proprietary software does. On the other hand, if a government funds or contracts Open Source development and procurement, this not only meets its own needs, but also increases the public wealth of information. Using Open Source software not only saves money but produces a better public good for the taxdollars spent.
Here's an analogy: Say a government wants to contract some scientific or medical research to help better the life of it's citizens. Would it be wrong to insist that results of that research would be freely available to the scientific community and thereby the taxpayers who paid to have that research done? That's not socialism, it's simple ethics. The technologically advanced world we live in today was made possible by the high efficiency of "Open Science" if you will--the sharing of discovery so that all may benefit. Would anyone today complain of anti-competitive practice if a government excluded from research grants those who refused to use the scientific method or properly document their findings?
As a sidenote, our nation was founded with the principle that a flourishing "public domain" of art, invention, and information was something to be desired. That's why copyrights and patents were only allowed for a very short time and were only considered as a compromise to help meet a greater goal.
Here lies the problem: 1) Cheap 2) Fast 3) Secure
.. we're just fortunate enough to have enough men/women doing their part to help out.. or in the case of OpenSSL/SSH, perhaps not quite enough.
Pick 2
Cheap should really be "developed with few man-hours" in this generalized statement. In a sense, good OSS is "highly expensive"
On the other hand, programming in a truly secure fashion from day one dramatically reduces the work to secure the software later on. So maybe that generalization breaks down when you have good programmers?
If I volunteer to write software for free - or work for BK for free - someone else will be out of a job. Why would BK pay people to do what others will do for free? If everyone is working for free, how much money is going to be available? NONE!!
Employed people are the people who spend money that is used to employ people who spend money that is used to employ... etc. Giving your labor away for free is not only stupid, it's detrimental to the economy as a whole. All it does is decrease the average value of labor overall.
You clearly have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what free / Open Source software is all about. It is NOT about getting a free lunch. It is NOT about "oh, I'll just give away all my hard work for no reason at all". Open Source is about meeting your needs in the most efficient way possible. In the world of information, the most efficient way for everyone to meet their needs is to collaborate on producing the information they need. Here's something that might shock you: I, personally, make money writing free software. And I make even more money providing complete solutions using both the software I have written and software written by other consultants / developers like me. And, at the same time, I'm saving the businesses and non-profit groups I work with a boatload of money they would have spent on proprietary software. But guess what? Since they're spending less on licenses, I can charge MORE for my services and still give them a huge discount compared to my competitors who rely on MS and other proprietary garbage.
So, what if the whole proprietary software industry collapses? (and it will eventually..) Does that mean there are no more jobs for programmers? Heck no! It just means the jobs will be found elsewhere.. either in specialized fields or doing the same kind of consulting work I do. (And let me tell you, it's a lot more socially rewarding to deal with people one-on-one than to work 50+ hour weeks in a cubical farm.) Similarly, as free software becomes more abundant, it becomes increasingly beneficial for companies to hire in-house developers to extend that free software to meet their specific needs. Once again, jobs don't disappear, they just move and evolve.
The economy is gradually becoming more efficient. You can't change that. Innovate or be left behind.
Presumably the programmers who take up this challenge would have to be unemployed to have any effect on unemployment, and only then after they complete these sci fi programs and give them away, with employment then consisting of any money coming from mods and service which may result (in other words, standard open source philosophy).
And what is wrong with that? I was previously an unemployed engineer / programmer. I now have a quickly expanding consulting business based on the philosophy you and the parent poster deem "not clueful of economics". And I'm helping small businesses and non-profit groups on a level that the big proprietary guys can't even begin to compete. Don't be so quick to make assumptions.
This doesn't look good for Linux, in my opinion. Maybe we should all start to think about jumping ship?
/. and start coding. That's the only way things are going to move faster towards what we all want. Open Source is already exploding in popularity worldwide. The sooner we can move that growth to the US, the sooner we won't even have to think of M$ any more. Get to it!
This is just plain poor journalism. Take a hike CmdrTaco. You're not doing anybody a favor by posting lies and FUD. (or, then again.. Slashdot DOES run a lot of M$ ads these days, doesn't it.. maybe I should take my readership elsewhere, eh?)
Seriously. Why would he post a totally unfounded comment suggesting that geeks "jump ship" from Linux? Folks, write this stuff off as BS and go out there and make a difference. Stop reading
My belief is that Unix and Linux should co-exist and should look and feel the same to application developers.
It's pretty silly that people still espouse this viewpoint. Every flavour of proprietary Unix is quickly dying. Linux and BSD have become technical equals and there is simply no more need for the remaining non-free "true Unix" relics. (nor is there any real money left in maintaining them) Expensive proprietary unices are why Microsoft won the desktop and was poised to conquer the server as well, had the free alternatives not risen up to save the day.
Proprietary "Unix" is dead. End of story. There's no need to co-exist. Out with the old, in with the new. That's progress.