Myspace is driven and pushed by "old media", not "new media". It is old media's way of saying, well if people must bypass our traditional control over information and content for the internet - let's try to make it our internet and not someone elses. For example, their obsession with "child predators" as of late probably has little to do with protecting children and everything to do with making sure that their system is fenced off from "that big nasty mean world out there". No, not the nasty world of child abusers, but the nasty world that breaks their distribution monopoly on information, news, and content.
They are the "bread and circuses" of the information age. Feed em crap, keep em happy, and most of all keep their eyes and ears distracted from political and financial issues of the real world. Like them or hate them, you gotta admit theyre doing a hell of a job at pushing the hype. IMHO, it is truely amazing.
That got me thinking Recently I saw a job posting on one of the major boards for a well known anon service, and at the end of the posting it said "security clearence required".
Now, unless they're doing some kind of business with the government, or spying on the people - why would they require a security clearence?
You see, for the people who don't really care - hollywood is more than happy to sell them the regular priced crap. But for the people who do, hollywood wants to force them into a higher priced market. That way they can not only bilk the people who have any particular niche, but they also can drive up profit by making the most offesnive or annoying content they can - and shoveling it out there. So yes, copyrights do provide an incentive, they incentivize hollywood to make overhyped crap.
You have the right to do whatever you please with your copies of a movie, but you're not allowed to modify them and re-distribute/re-sell them. You were not granted a license for that. The reason behind this lawsuit is that if there is a market for sanitized films, the movie industry want it for themselves since they own the content already.
Well, if I have a right to modify my copy as I please, then I also have a right to hire someone to do it for me. Also I really don't care that "you're not allowed to modify them and re-distribute/re-sell them". We already know what the person pointing the gun at our face is telling us to do, the point is we should still act in defiance because they plan to pull the trigger anyhow.
I think the point they're trying to show that information censorship is useless, and creates more security problems than it prevents. In addition, cheap solutions won't work. If China want's real censorship, then the very least we can do is force them to spend buco bucks on it, or force them into an all or nothing situation. Like it or not, China needs connectivity to the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs connectivity to China.
China also has a very "wall" orientated culture. Somebody is going to have to teach the Chinese government the hard way that it doesn't work with information. In fact, Chinese culture already knows that, that's why most asian cultures have no traditional concept of copyrights and patnets. It's also why when we don't help the Chinese government we do help the Chinese people.
You idiot, nearly every single climate researcher believes that global warming is accelerating at a rate unprecedented in the history of our species....
You are proving that you are the idiot by showing at the very least that you are ignorant about anything else. Like this petition signed by 17000 scientists saying global warming research is a fraud. http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm. Of course, I'm sure you will find a way to blow that off too, don't let the facts get in the way of your TV science now.....
In all fairness, untill Sun works out the java problems reguarding their control and non-free implementation, it's simply not worth it for developers to lock themselves in like that.
Rights don't revolve arround "what's in it for me", but an understanding that it is in your best interest to make it your best interest to look out for other people's best interst.
Tell them I've found a cure - stop having sex with people who have AIDS. Their biggest problem is not access to medication, it's that they belive AIDS is a lie by the "white man" to keep them down or other general ignorances/stupidity.
Their attitudes and how they got AIDS is compeltely irrelavent when it comes to the issue of wheter it is ok to sue their pants off to keep them from providing themselves adequete treatment.
...I really take issue with companies whose business models center around taking others to court. This type of business is an insult to the inventors who did not get proper credit for their discoveries.
The problem with patents is way deeper that that. The big problem is not now, but 20+ years from now as society will likely start to enter the replication age and 3d-printer/nano/bio technologies will eventually shift manufacturing away from the factory and back into the home. When this happens, some people will see this as a way to create tremendous wealth by offering creation related services. Unfortunately, others will see this as an opportunity to extract nearly infinite licensing royalities. In sum, manufacturing will become commoditized and there will be this huge pressure for the powers that be to coerce themsleves into every aspect of peoples private lives.
History teaches that when the labor force became commoditized in the mid 1800's - it blew up the plans of the plantation systems to leverage industrial technology to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. The consequence was the most bloody war in human history - the US civil war. It was considered the most bloody in human history because they were just beginning to figure out how to use these new technologies to kill people, but hadn't developed any adequete defences yet.
The point is that a similar problem will happen when patents become commoditized, and when those who wish to impose patent controlls resort to coercion to impose them. People don't seem to understand that patents by their very nature are violent and genocidial and could easially lead to the ruthless murder of billions as manufacturing becomes commoditized. In fact, their track record today isn't too impressive: eg, how safety devices in autos were held back 20 years because of patents, and how millions Africans died needlseely of AIDS because people tried to forbid them from making generics by suing in the world court. These are just some in a long list of exanples that have caused millions to die or suffer needlessly, right now most of the ruin is not obvious to us - but it certainly will eventually become so.
The purpose of the OSDL is collaberation and sharing R&D. In a proprietary world, it doesn't make sense to collaberate or to share R&D, you are more profitable forking off a bunch of proprietary extensions to differentiate and fense off features from your competitors. But in the open source community that will get you killed in a hurry, hense OSDL. If companies have R&D to do, they are better off each putting $1 of R&D for a total combined R&D of $2, $3 or $4... then each doing their own independent R&D in parallel which would average out to $1 R&D in value.
In addition, Oracle is not a member of OSDL because their core is not open source, and they have no intention to be.
Wouldn't it be nice if they could all get a share by threatening to throttle Google's traffic on their networks?
My understanding is that they can do that right now, but they wouldn't dare - because google could tell them to go to hell and all their customers would eventually too when they turn on the throttle. What the telcos want is the ability to not throttle, but the ability to let google use up whatever google will use and have the law force google to pay them and not give google the option of telling them to go to hell. So then google turned arround and tried to get the law to "force" net neutrality, and not let them tier service at all.
Let me state this now on no uncertain terms. They will force some kind of regulation, it will fail, and then they will blame the market for failing to meet the rigorous needs of the information age, but the truth is, we are better off with no new laws at all. No forced neutrality, no forced billing - just get the FSCK out of the way and let things progress via market forces like they have been for the last 15 years now.
Either way, you've got a ton of drivers sitting around that you'll never use. They don't clog up the kernel, since the kernel image rarely contains many drivers. Instead, most Linux distros use modules that get loaded as needed. On a microkernel, they would be driver binaries that would get run as needed. They clog things up to exactly the same extent; they sit around on the hard drive doing nothing.
The point is not a resource usage point, but a flexability point. If you want to add a new driver or even change one, it pretty much takes co-opting the entire kernel tree, or compiling the driver live against the current kernel, or having pre-compiled modules against every possible kernel out there.
Either way, it's hard to add new drivers to old kernels. This is not a result of the fact that drivers are in the kernel, but of the fact that Linus refuses to use a stable driver API. This would preclude driver compatibility between versions just as effectively on a microkernel as it does now.
The driver API wouldn't need to be as stable in a Microkernel design. (I'm not a kernel guru, so you may know better)
Why are the network drivers part of the kernel? It seems like this would make it more difficult to adopt newer hardware types. Also, since most computers have 1-2 NICs at the most, wouldn't that clog up the kernel with tons of drivers for hardware you'll never use?
This is the essence of the Microkernel debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel/ The truth is that the Microkernel model probably is a better design, but in terms of when the Linux kernel was starting out - its implementation simply wasn't pratical. It didn't help that the people who thought they knew how to build a better kernel decided to try and intellectually brow-beat Linus into doing it instead of implementing it themselves and putting it under the GPL. This led to a lot of bitterness and resentment between the two camps. The HURD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd project is a GPL microkernel project, but it simply wasn't managed as well as Linus managed Linux.
I think over time, things eventually will move to a microkernel model even though there are other ways to emulate some of their security and flexability benefits - like xen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen
I tell you what. If MS puts their patents on the table and removes their support of SCO and copyright liability, then I'll consider talking. Until then, forget it, actions speak louder than words.
The US in entering the information age in a big way, and the US vision of IP is simply plain wrong. The future is not one of "intellectual property", but of information services. Just as the commoditisation of the labor force led to the drastic death of the plantation system and all it's false property rights, the commoditisation of information in the information age will lead to the drastic death of the copyright system and false "intellectual property" rights.
The fact that Linux has taken off in the USA faster than any other nation is directly because the US is a bigger free market than any other market. The information age happened here first, the market and economy is the biggest market, and the internet penetration while not the highest in the world is still way up there. It is not Europe, Russia, China, or India that need to change. It is the US, and the pressures to change are bigger than life and are not coming from overseas, but comming from right here at home.
The truth is that the only way we are going to be able to get it on with the information age is to kill copyrights right here at home. I say we had better be ready for that battle, cause it's comming wether we want it or not.
...AT&T's complaint is that they have to carry this traffic for free across their network, and get nothing from this particular transaction.
No they don't, at least that's my understanding as of now. AT&T is free to block that traffic, but then again all the people who connect to AT&T are free to stop doing business with them. Perhaps AT&T is wineing about the free market and wants to use the government to force Google to pay no matter what. Perhaps Google wants to use the government to force AT&T to be neutral no matter what. IMHO, they are both wrong, we don't need any new laws either way.
My understanding is that currently a communications company can try to bill someone (like Google) whose traffic gets routed thru their network (and they do not provide the connectivity at the end points), but then Google can tell them to go to hell. Well, if they block Google traffic all their customers will leave, so now they want the government to force Google to pay. So now the 'Google side' has turned things arround and decided to get the government to force neutral access no matter what.
The truth is that we are probably better off with no new laws at all. Let the companies who screw with traffic go broke, and let the market force neutral access and not the government.
You see, the US and Micrisofts and Hollywoods "vision" of the future is that instead of providing goods and services to pay off the huge US debts, they provide IP. While it's an interesting trade off: phoney property for printed up paper money, the problem is that for people to live day to day they need real goods and services. The problem is also that the information age implies just the opposite, information is becomming commoditized which means that it's service value is becoming worth more than it's IP value. Not to mention, that the information age is also making it impossible for the Fed to lie to people about the value of their money. Mees thinks all hell is about to break loose when the real world kicks in and ripps these people a new one.
Why does everyone always scream that the sky is falling?
cause it is? Seriously though, the sky isn't falling, society is just suffering the birthing pains of the information age and one of those pains is that is't becomming impossible for central banks to force and manipulate the value of paper money.
When someone tries to warn you about something for your own good, and you don't understand why, may I advise not talking over their head. Slashdot is usually not an economic forum, but a technology one. But some of us understand both, and are trying to warn people. People like me are trying to tell you something, you would be wise to listen. I think that some people don't like the US and are trying to point out it's economic weaknesses because they don't like the president or US policy and are trying to justify themselves. I don't care, the US problems are directly because of the way our centralized banking system works and would have happened without Bush or the war in Iraq. This is also not a bash on the United States, Europe and Japan have problems that are just as bad if not moreso. It's not like I get some cheap thrill preaching gloom and doom and that preaching gold as a currency. In fact it's more like optimisim, every time US productivity increases, they steal it away from us by watering down the value of our currency - IMHO the failuse of this system, while harsh, is a good thing. That kind of system not only waters down value, but also encourages debt, both will be bad to have as society enters the information age.
Slashdot Mirror
Myspace is driven and pushed by "old media", not "new media". It is old media's way of saying, well if people must bypass our traditional control over information and content for the internet - let's try to make it our internet and not someone elses. For example, their obsession with "child predators" as of late probably has little to do with protecting children and everything to do with making sure that their system is fenced off from "that big nasty mean world out there". No, not the nasty world of child abusers, but the nasty world that breaks their distribution monopoly on information, news, and content.
They are the "bread and circuses" of the information age. Feed em crap, keep em happy, and most of all keep their eyes and ears distracted from political and financial issues of the real world. Like them or hate them, you gotta admit theyre doing a hell of a job at pushing the hype. IMHO, it is truely amazing.
That got me thinking Recently I saw a job posting on one of the major boards for a well known anon service, and at the end of the posting it said "security clearence required".
Now, unless they're doing some kind of business with the government, or spying on the people - why would they require a security clearence?
You see, for the people who don't really care - hollywood is more than happy to sell them the regular priced crap. But for the people who do, hollywood wants to force them into a higher priced market. That way they can not only bilk the people who have any particular niche, but they also can drive up profit by making the most offesnive or annoying content they can - and shoveling it out there. So yes, copyrights do provide an incentive, they incentivize hollywood to make overhyped crap.
Well indeed, you have made a very compelling argument if they were being sued for dishonest or mis represented labeling.
Well, if I have a right to modify my copy as I please, then I also have a right to hire someone to do it for me. Also I really don't care that "you're not allowed to modify them and re-distribute/re-sell them". We already know what the person pointing the gun at our face is telling us to do, the point is we should still act in defiance because they plan to pull the trigger anyhow.
I think the point they're trying to show that information censorship is useless, and creates more security problems than it prevents. In addition, cheap solutions won't work. If China want's real censorship, then the very least we can do is force them to spend buco bucks on it, or force them into an all or nothing situation. Like it or not, China needs connectivity to the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs connectivity to China.
China also has a very "wall" orientated culture. Somebody is going to have to teach the Chinese government the hard way that it doesn't work with information. In fact, Chinese culture already knows that, that's why most asian cultures have no traditional concept of copyrights and patnets. It's also why when we don't help the Chinese government we do help the Chinese people.
You are proving that you are the idiot by showing at the very least that you are ignorant about anything else. Like this petition signed by 17000 scientists saying global warming research is a fraud. http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm. Of course, I'm sure you will find a way to blow that off too, don't let the facts get in the way of your TV science now.....
Thanks for the point,
now lets talk about all that global warming research funded by the EPA?
In all fairness, untill Sun works out the java problems reguarding their control and non-free implementation, it's simply not worth it for developers to lock themselves in like that.
Rights don't revolve arround "what's in it for me", but an understanding that it is in your best interest to make it your best interest to look out for other people's best interst.
oops, bloodiest war in US history and of the 19th century (in terms of US lives lost)....
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=hahn020
Their attitudes and how they got AIDS is compeltely irrelavent when it comes to the issue of wheter it is ok to sue their pants off to keep them from providing themselves adequete treatment.
The problem with patents is way deeper that that. The big problem is not now, but 20+ years from now as society will likely start to enter the replication age and 3d-printer/nano/bio technologies will eventually shift manufacturing away from the factory and back into the home. When this happens, some people will see this as a way to create tremendous wealth by offering creation related services. Unfortunately, others will see this as an opportunity to extract nearly infinite licensing royalities. In sum, manufacturing will become commoditized and there will be this huge pressure for the powers that be to coerce themsleves into every aspect of peoples private lives.
History teaches that when the labor force became commoditized in the mid 1800's - it blew up the plans of the plantation systems to leverage industrial technology to expand their plantations for unlimited growth and profit. The consequence was the most bloody war in human history - the US civil war. It was considered the most bloody in human history because they were just beginning to figure out how to use these new technologies to kill people, but hadn't developed any adequete defences yet.
The point is that a similar problem will happen when patents become commoditized, and when those who wish to impose patent controlls resort to coercion to impose them. People don't seem to understand that patents by their very nature are violent and genocidial and could easially lead to the ruthless murder of billions as manufacturing becomes commoditized. In fact, their track record today isn't too impressive: eg, how safety devices in autos were held back 20 years because of patents, and how millions Africans died needlseely of AIDS because people tried to forbid them from making generics by suing in the world court. These are just some in a long list of exanples that have caused millions to die or suffer needlessly, right now most of the ruin is not obvious to us - but it certainly will eventually become so.
Trouble with what? That Microsoft is comming out with a Linux disto? :)
The purpose of the OSDL is collaberation and sharing R&D. In a proprietary world, it doesn't make sense to collaberate or to share R&D, you are more profitable forking off a bunch of proprietary extensions to differentiate and fense off features from your competitors. But in the open source community that will get you killed in a hurry, hense OSDL. If companies have R&D to do, they are better off each putting $1 of R&D for a total combined R&D of $2, $3 or $4... then each doing their own independent R&D in parallel which would average out to $1 R&D in value.
In addition, Oracle is not a member of OSDL because their core is not open source, and they have no intention to be.
Wouldn't it be nice if they could all get a share by threatening to throttle Google's traffic on their networks?
My understanding is that they can do that right now, but they wouldn't dare - because google could tell them to go to hell and all their customers would eventually too when they turn on the throttle. What the telcos want is the ability to not throttle, but the ability to let google use up whatever google will use and have the law force google to pay them and not give google the option of telling them to go to hell. So then google turned arround and tried to get the law to "force" net neutrality, and not let them tier service at all.
Let me state this now on no uncertain terms. They will force some kind of regulation, it will fail, and then they will blame the market for failing to meet the rigorous needs of the information age, but the truth is, we are better off with no new laws at all. No forced neutrality, no forced billing - just get the FSCK out of the way and let things progress via market forces like they have been for the last 15 years now.
The point is not a resource usage point, but a flexability point. If you want to add a new driver or even change one, it pretty much takes co-opting the entire kernel tree, or compiling the driver live against the current kernel, or having pre-compiled modules against every possible kernel out there.
The driver API wouldn't need to be as stable in a Microkernel design. (I'm not a kernel guru, so you may know better)
This is the essence of the Microkernel debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel/ The truth is that the Microkernel model probably is a better design, but in terms of when the Linux kernel was starting out - its implementation simply wasn't pratical. It didn't help that the people who thought they knew how to build a better kernel decided to try and intellectually brow-beat Linus into doing it instead of implementing it themselves and putting it under the GPL. This led to a lot of bitterness and resentment between the two camps. The HURD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd project is a GPL microkernel project, but it simply wasn't managed as well as Linus managed Linux.
I think over time, things eventually will move to a microkernel model even though there are other ways to emulate some of their security and flexability benefits - like xen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen
I tell you what. If MS puts their patents on the table and removes their support of SCO and copyright liability, then I'll consider talking. Until then, forget it, actions speak louder than words.
The US in entering the information age in a big way, and the US vision of IP is simply plain wrong. The future is not one of "intellectual property", but of information services. Just as the commoditisation of the labor force led to the drastic death of the plantation system and all it's false property rights, the commoditisation of information in the information age will lead to the drastic death of the copyright system and false "intellectual property" rights.
The fact that Linux has taken off in the USA faster than any other nation is directly because the US is a bigger free market than any other market. The information age happened here first, the market and economy is the biggest market, and the internet penetration while not the highest in the world is still way up there. It is not Europe, Russia, China, or India that need to change. It is the US, and the pressures to change are bigger than life and are not coming from overseas, but comming from right here at home.
The truth is that the only way we are going to be able to get it on with the information age is to kill copyrights right here at home. I say we had better be ready for that battle, cause it's comming wether we want it or not.
No they don't, at least that's my understanding as of now. AT&T is free to block that traffic, but then again all the people who connect to AT&T are free to stop doing business with them. Perhaps AT&T is wineing about the free market and wants to use the government to force Google to pay no matter what. Perhaps Google wants to use the government to force AT&T to be neutral no matter what. IMHO, they are both wrong, we don't need any new laws either way.
My understanding is that currently a communications company can try to bill someone (like Google) whose traffic gets routed thru their network (and they do not provide the connectivity at the end points), but then Google can tell them to go to hell. Well, if they block Google traffic all their customers will leave, so now they want the government to force Google to pay. So now the 'Google side' has turned things arround and decided to get the government to force neutral access no matter what.
The truth is that we are probably better off with no new laws at all. Let the companies who screw with traffic go broke, and let the market force neutral access and not the government.
You see, the US and Micrisofts and Hollywoods "vision" of the future is that instead of providing goods and services to pay off the huge US debts, they provide IP. While it's an interesting trade off: phoney property for printed up paper money, the problem is that for people to live day to day they need real goods and services. The problem is also that the information age implies just the opposite, information is becomming commoditized which means that it's service value is becoming worth more than it's IP value. Not to mention, that the information age is also making it impossible for the Fed to lie to people about the value of their money. Mees thinks all hell is about to break loose when the real world kicks in and ripps these people a new one.
cause it is? Seriously though, the sky isn't falling, society is just suffering the birthing pains of the information age and one of those pains is that is't becomming impossible for central banks to force and manipulate the value of paper money.
When someone tries to warn you about something for your own good, and you don't understand why, may I advise not talking over their head.
Slashdot is usually not an economic forum, but a technology one. But some of us understand both, and are trying to warn people. People like me are trying to tell you something, you would be wise to listen. I think that some people don't like the US and are trying to point out it's economic weaknesses because they don't like the president or US policy and are trying to justify themselves. I don't care, the US problems are directly because of the way our centralized banking system works and would have happened without Bush or the war in Iraq. This is also not a bash on the United States, Europe and Japan have problems that are just as bad if not moreso. It's not like I get some cheap thrill preaching gloom and doom and that preaching gold as a currency. In fact it's more like optimisim, every time US productivity increases, they steal it away from us by watering down the value of our currency - IMHO the failuse of this system, while harsh, is a good thing. That kind of system not only waters down value, but also encourages debt, both will be bad to have as society enters the information age.