The real problem is copyrights. From the time all of us were young - we were told that copying things is stealing, and a betrayal to those who create, and that it is pro buisness, and anti-communisim, and it is a moral right to restrict what other people copy because it's a property right.
So now the GPL comes along with the attitude that copyrights are wrong, and lets fight fire with fire attitude - and understandably alot of people can't handle it. Nor can they face that "the slave states can't get along with the free states", because they just can't see copyrights for the violation that they are.
But the truth is copyrights are not a property right, and have nothing to do with property. And they are more like a government granted monopoly/regulation on how people use information than a pro business property. And when you think about it, those who impose copyrights are really the traitors because they are the ones who have taken tons of knowledge and information from society freely - only to build on it and try and fence it off using lawsuits, bullying, and the force of government.
The truth is that copying is not wrong, and that the information age demands the free flow of information, just like the industrial revolution demanded the free flow of labor (eg the end of slavery) even if all hell breaks loose to do it.
Please renember that the people who pay your salaries do not work for and do represent the music industry. And also, please renember that your consumer division makes way more that your music division. And also, please renember companies like IBM and Apple who royally screwed themselves out of the PC revolution while Miscrsoft made billions because they simply could not hold themselves accountable to the economic forces and realities that drive the bottom line. And also, please renember that while Sony Corp is a multi billion dollar corporation, they are not bigger than the global economy that puts out well over a trillion per month - and will simply beat you to a bloody pulp if you try to force your misguided will on the market rather than obey what the market is trying to tell you. Finally, please renember you are putting faith in a business strategy that requires the ability to restrict the free flow of information at a time when it's never been more free flowing since the birth of human existence. Translation - you are a guaranteed looser.
.. but there are lots of other technologies, esp quantum... where once established you can doubble the calculation capacity every 18 months without very much dificulty.
Re:Free will an illusion? Lies, I tell you!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
"Non deterministic" doesn't necissairly mean "random without purpose" anymore than it means "existence is irrational". All it means is that the behavior can't be determined.
Once again, you could argue purpose or no purpose, and it would be impossible to prove either way. In terms of choices, the purpose would imply that they're not simply happening. I imagine this purpose would be the same nature that is behind my self-awareness.
Re:Free will an illusion? Lies, I tell you!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
Where does choice not come from? Basically, choice comes from the fact that existence is not deterministic, and that property of existence materializes in certain ways. In the brain it most likely materializes in the form of chemichal reactions and nuron-firing patterns that have exact same timing such that a quantumechanical relationship is guaranteed.
The same could be said about scientific method... "prove that existence is rational" , we don't , we assume it's rational and take it from there. One could say "well it looks like some things are irrational", and maybe people can't explain them now - but it would still be foolish to assume that there is no rational underpining. Well, the same is true with choice, one could point out all sorts of situationals, but it still does not say anything about choice or the non deterministic nature of the universe.
Finally, you seem to be confusing choices and consequences. Generally speaking, choices relate to consequences because existence is rational, but just because you choose to jump off a bridge... wouldn't necissairly mean you could choose to land on your feet unharmed. Choice isn't about choosing outcomes, it is about non-determinisim.
Re:Free will an illusion? Lies, I tell you!
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 1
If free will is an illusion, how can I go on believing that I am a better person than all those bad, evil, stupid people out there? I have made better choices in my life and therefore am more deserving of all the good things I have. Why, I might actually have to feel empathy for them instead of the smug superiority I feel now!
Well I can certainly feel empathy for other people. Even when they make crappy choices, it's sad to see bad things happen to them, but I agree free will is certainly not an illusion! If there is one thing that history and the human experience has shown, it's that people are not deterministic. The sheer number of people who have risen above the level of looserdom inspite of terrible circumstances, and the similar numbers who become loosers inspite huge opportunities and beneficial experiances in their lives. You can even try training people with electro-cunvulsive therapy, and people still will - find someone, or hang arround someone, or put themselves in situations where they get un-trained or re-trained according to their choices. Maybe in given instances, people are destined by circumstances, but for the big picture it is definitely a choice only game.
Wait? IAAPL stands for "I am a patent lawyer" right? Are you for real? I thought I would see the doomsday before I saw a lawyer admit that patents are crap. Who are you?
Ok, well I am one of those people who do believe that ALL patents are crap, and they should be treated like the crap that they are. (I'm the guy that wrote the bitter protest against patents, and the bitter protest against copyrights that you can find in any search engine) In fact, some patents like AIDS drug patents are outright about murdering poor people in the name of nifty sounding theories.
But at the same time - I have limited resources and I want to focus those resources on the battles that I can win. Right now, the battle I can win is the battle that has to do with anything that has the effect of restricting the free flow of information. That battle has to take place now and finish soon because society simply can not effectively enter into the information age without it. The pressures are going to become insane, and I can use that to my leverage to get results.
In the future I believe that fabrication, and assembly, and nano technology, and inkjet printers for mechanical objects, will become a reality - and at that time patents on things that have physical presence will be as easy to copy as information is and will be ripe for the kill. Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love to do something now to take a stab at the heart of ALL patents. And it is not lost on me that the more we attack all patents in general now the more that will make things easier on ourselves later. And I still think they should be saying something like "all patents are crap, but software patnets need to go now" instead of "patents are good, but we need this incy wincy exception" - but what can I say - someone else is behind the curtin pushing the buttons.
One more thing to think about. Copyright's and software patents are about information controll, which is battle that can not be and likely will not be fought with physical violence. But other patents are about physical controll, and don't be supprised if both sides pro and con will require physically coercive strategies. Each battle IMHO requires a different strategy.
Actually, if all he did was pull free support, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, I would be much happier if he charged for support, but put bitkeeper under a free license than I would if he gave free support with bitkeeper under closed license.
That's such bullshit. First off, the guy who was reverse engineering wasn't party to the license. And second off, that logic is like the saying "if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves".
PS: I'm not liberal, I'm more like libertarian, and copyrights are not a property right - they are a bullshit regulation on how people use information.
When you think of copyrights like a right (and please don't go off on how it's pro business), then it is only a matter of time till you believe that your right is the right to controll how others use or learn from information that originated from you via coercive means.
Copyrights are not a "reasonable" position anymore (and please don't go off about how the GPL is a copyright license without reading it first either) Because the "right" to micro-controll and manipulate how every last person uses information in the information age is no longer, workable tenable, or acceptable any more.
Did your grocery store ever offer you free bread and milk? Did they imply that this would be an ongoing offer? Was there ever a concern that your household was becoming dependant on that free bread and milk? And once you did become dependant on that free bread and milk, did your grocery store now demand the 4 bucks because they discovered one of your household members was learning how to bake bread?
If I decided to make my own bread and milk for free from scratch, no store in the world - or decent human being would threaten me for making a copy of theres with lawsuits for copyright infringement or charge me for copying - but this is exactly what BitKeeper is doing today. It's bullshit morality, and it not only stupidly treats something that is tangable like something that isn't, but it treats it in a way that is even MORE restrictive than physical things.
Since free (not as in beer) software has started, it must be behind over 100Bln in economic activity alone - yet people still can't pull their head out and see who'se being pro business and commerce, and who'se being pro cartel, monopoly, and anti free makret. God dammit, information has no natural limit in supply and demand, it's the services, support, and things that go with it that do. Bottom line, people who can't provide these seem to want to controll the information, people who can don't. The former simply doesn't belong in the information age.
What happened is that somebody came up with a clever marketing ploy to push their bluetooth enabled technology. Like many "fads" reported in the media, they are fabricated via croney deals to serve marketing purposes and have nothing to do with real news or trends.
If the BIOS doesn't do it, the OS, upon boot could simply instruct the drive not to accept password change commands. Which wouldn't stop a sufficient virus from sabatoging the next boot and setting it, but still it increases security.
Oops, the article said that. That's what I get for only reading half TFA. But, I did think of another hack - why not just buy a hard drive of the same make and model and switch the circut boards.
If the BIOS doesn't do it, the OS, upon boot could simply instruct the drive not to accept password change commands. Which wouldn't stop a sufficient virus from sabatoging the next boot and setting it, but still it increases security.
Well, it's nice that Texas doesn't punish people who are productive, but Texas property and sales taxes are pretty high. (well not compaired to NY and CA or Boston, but high compaired to most places.)
.. es easy. The least proprietary technology always wins out. Not the prettiest, not the best designed or the most elloquent. Always the least proprietary.
That's how intel made it, that's how windows (ironically) made it, that's how the tcp/ip internet made it, and that's how linux is going to make it today and why it will simply kick butt.
The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.
This is not true, because efforts to impose "trusted computing" on all hardware by force of law. Even if an encryption scheme is broken, the media material could have embedded noise in it with a digital signature information and hardware could be mandated not to process any digital media or information unless it's properly signed.
Many of the posts above say Hurd is a waste of time. I suspect the Hurd team just enjoys hacking. I really don't think they care if its a "waste" of time. They just love what they do. I think it's awesome to be so dedicated to your craft. Even if the Hurd never works... I bet they will still look back on the whole experience as something pretty cool.
I agree it's cool, but I think Hurd deservs more credit. I sincerely think that Hurd has a better design, which is why it will eventually be successfull in the real world. Yes I know that there have been lots of better designs out there that never made it beond the lab or a small nitche - but this phenomina is a side effect of proprietary technology, not a natural occurence of design and progression. In the free (not as in beer) world, the technology that is better actually wins out.
I know of no show-stoppers that would prevent anything from working on Hurd that *IS* working on Linux now - even many of the modules. Hurd would simply make it easier to deal with the driver/interface space. Either Hurds main features will eventually make it into Linux (most likely), or the Linux base will eventually come to use Hurd more and more.
In some states, these parts of the contract are null and void because because state law guarantees the right to keep controll over things you do independently of your employer's time and resources.
I believe that most states with strong RnD have laws like this. But many contracts have these clauses anyhow as juat a catch-all and for the guy who doesn't know better.
The 4th clearly wasn't tough enough. It is simply all to esay to make up phony causes "like the war on drugs", like "catching terrorists" as an excuse to do anything they want. The 4th should have been much more demanding, and demanded harsh punishment for those who do anything that has the effect of weakening it.
Re:As a female undergrad computer science student.
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't it occur to anyone that we just want to be treated like ordinary human beings, no matter what's between our legs? I mean, I'm not going to refuse if somebody throws money at me for having a vagina and using a computer, but it's really not a good way to encourage other girls to join the field
You know what, guys are physically and emotionally co-dependent on girls. We can't help it, we're pratcically born that way - and what isn't already built in is pounced into us solidly by our mothers before we grow up - and then even more so by girls when we become teens.
If you want guys to respect and accept girls for who they are, then you need to respect and accept guys for who they are too.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem is copyrights. From the time all of us were young - we were told that copying things is stealing, and a betrayal to those who create, and that it is pro buisness, and anti-communisim, and it is a moral right to restrict what other people copy because it's a property right.
So now the GPL comes along with the attitude that copyrights are wrong, and lets fight fire with fire attitude - and understandably alot of people can't handle it. Nor can they face that "the slave states can't get along with the free states", because they just can't see copyrights for the violation that they are.
But the truth is copyrights are not a property right, and have nothing to do with property. And they are more like a government granted monopoly/regulation on how people use information than a pro business property. And when you think about it, those who impose copyrights are really the traitors because they are the ones who have taken tons of knowledge and information from society freely - only to build on it and try and fence it off using lawsuits, bullying, and the force of government.
The truth is that copying is not wrong, and that the information age demands the free flow of information, just like the industrial revolution demanded the free flow of labor (eg the end of slavery) even if all hell breaks loose to do it.
Please renember that the people who pay your salaries do not work for and do represent the music industry. And also, please renember that your consumer division makes way more that your music division. And also, please renember companies like IBM and Apple who royally screwed themselves out of the PC revolution while Miscrsoft made billions because they simply could not hold themselves accountable to the economic forces and realities that drive the bottom line. And also, please renember that while Sony Corp is a multi billion dollar corporation, they are not bigger than the global economy that puts out well over a trillion per month - and will simply beat you to a bloody pulp if you try to force your misguided will on the market rather than obey what the market is trying to tell you. Finally, please renember you are putting faith in a business strategy that requires the ability to restrict the free flow of information at a time when it's never been more free flowing since the birth of human existence. Translation - you are a guaranteed looser.
Sincerely
Consumer and common sense
PS: good riddance and good luck, you'll need it
yup, got the gold!
OOPS, I guess you can tell where my mind is this morning.
.. but there are lots of other technologies, esp quantum... where once established you can doubble the calculation capacity every 18 months without very much dificulty.
"Non deterministic" doesn't necissairly mean "random without purpose" anymore than it means "existence is irrational". All it means is that the behavior can't be determined.
Once again, you could argue purpose or no purpose, and it would be impossible to prove either way. In terms of choices, the purpose would imply that they're not simply happening. I imagine this purpose would be the same nature that is behind my self-awareness.
Where does choice not come from? Basically, choice comes from the fact that existence is not deterministic, and that property of existence materializes in certain ways. In the brain it most likely materializes in the form of chemichal reactions and nuron-firing patterns that have exact same timing such that a quantumechanical relationship is guaranteed.
... "prove that existence is rational" , we don't , we assume it's rational and take it from there. One could say "well it looks like some things are irrational", and maybe people can't explain them now - but it would still be foolish to assume that there is no rational underpining. Well, the same is true with choice, one could point out all sorts of situationals, but it still does not say anything about choice or the non deterministic nature of the universe.
... wouldn't necissairly mean you could choose to land on your feet unharmed. Choice isn't about choosing outcomes, it is about non-determinisim.
The same could be said about scientific method
Finally, you seem to be confusing choices and consequences. Generally speaking, choices relate to consequences because existence is rational, but just because you choose to jump off a bridge
If free will is an illusion, how can I go on believing that I am a better person than all those bad, evil, stupid people out there? I have made better choices in my life and therefore am more deserving of all the good things I have. Why, I might actually have to feel empathy for them instead of the smug superiority I feel now!
Well I can certainly feel empathy for other people. Even when they make crappy choices, it's sad to see bad things happen to them, but I agree free will is certainly not an illusion! If there is one thing that history and the human experience has shown, it's that people are not deterministic. The sheer number of people who have risen above the level of looserdom inspite of terrible circumstances, and the similar numbers who become loosers inspite huge opportunities and beneficial experiances in their lives. You can even try training people with electro-cunvulsive therapy, and people still will - find someone, or hang arround someone, or put themselves in situations where they get un-trained or re-trained according to their choices. Maybe in given instances, people are destined by circumstances, but for the big picture it is definitely a choice only game.
Wait? IAAPL stands for "I am a patent lawyer" right? Are you for real? I thought I would see the doomsday before I saw a lawyer admit that patents are crap. Who are you?
Ok, well I am one of those people who do believe that ALL patents are crap, and they should be treated like the crap that they are. (I'm the guy that wrote the bitter protest against patents, and the bitter protest against copyrights that you can find in any search engine) In fact, some patents like AIDS drug patents are outright about murdering poor people in the name of nifty sounding theories.
But at the same time - I have limited resources and I want to focus those resources on the battles that I can win. Right now, the battle I can win is the battle that has to do with anything that has the effect of restricting the free flow of information. That battle has to take place now and finish soon because society simply can not effectively enter into the information age without it. The pressures are going to become insane, and I can use that to my leverage to get results.
In the future I believe that fabrication, and assembly, and nano technology, and inkjet printers for mechanical objects, will become a reality - and at that time patents on things that have physical presence will be as easy to copy as information is and will be ripe for the kill. Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love to do something now to take a stab at the heart of ALL patents. And it is not lost on me that the more we attack all patents in general now the more that will make things easier on ourselves later. And I still think they should be saying something like "all patents are crap, but software patnets need to go now" instead of "patents are good, but we need this incy wincy exception" - but what can I say - someone else is behind the curtin pushing the buttons.
One more thing to think about. Copyright's and software patents are about information controll, which is battle that can not be and likely will not be fought with physical violence. But other patents are about physical controll, and don't be supprised if both sides pro and con will require physically coercive strategies. Each battle IMHO requires a different strategy.
Actually, if all he did was pull free support, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, I would be much happier if he charged for support, but put bitkeeper under a free license than I would if he gave free support with bitkeeper under closed license.
If he has access to the binary he's party to the license.
If he didn't than it's not reverse engineering now is it?
First off, this is a red herring, the notion that he violated any ethical boundaries either way is bullshit morality.
Second, studying the formatted output of a product is a lot different that using that product or being party to the license, now isn't it?
If you don't like the license ... don't use it.
That's such bullshit. First off, the guy who was reverse engineering wasn't party to the license. And second off, that logic is like the saying "if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves".
PS: I'm not liberal, I'm more like libertarian, and copyrights are not a property right - they are a bullshit regulation on how people use information.
When you think of copyrights like a right (and please don't go off on how it's pro business), then it is only a matter of time till you believe that your right is the right to controll how others use or learn from information that originated from you via coercive means.
Copyrights are not a "reasonable" position anymore (and please don't go off about how the GPL is a copyright license without reading it first either) Because the "right" to micro-controll and manipulate how every last person uses information in the information age is no longer, workable tenable, or acceptable any more.
Did your grocery store ever offer you free bread and milk? Did they imply that this would be an ongoing offer? Was there ever a concern that your household was becoming dependant on that free bread and milk? And once you did become dependant on that free bread and milk, did your grocery store now demand the 4 bucks because they discovered one of your household members was learning how to bake bread?
If I decided to make my own bread and milk for free from scratch, no store in the world - or decent human being would threaten me for making a copy of theres with lawsuits for copyright infringement or charge me for copying - but this is exactly what BitKeeper is doing today. It's bullshit morality, and it not only stupidly treats something that is tangable like something that isn't, but it treats it in a way that is even MORE restrictive than physical things.
Since free (not as in beer) software has started, it must be behind over 100Bln in economic activity alone - yet people still can't pull their head out and see who'se being pro business and commerce, and who'se being pro cartel, monopoly, and anti free makret. God dammit, information has no natural limit in supply and demand, it's the services, support, and things that go with it that do. Bottom line, people who can't provide these seem to want to controll the information, people who can don't. The former simply doesn't belong in the information age.
We should respect the right of anybody and any commodity to come and go to the USA as they please unless they are an obvious immenent threat.
What happened is that somebody came up with a clever marketing ploy to push their bluetooth enabled technology. Like many "fads" reported in the media, they are fabricated via croney deals to serve marketing purposes and have nothing to do with real news or trends.
If the BIOS doesn't do it, the OS, upon boot could simply instruct the drive not to accept password change commands. Which wouldn't stop a sufficient virus from sabatoging the next boot and setting it, but still it increases security.
Oops, the article said that. That's what I get for only reading half TFA. But, I did think of another hack - why not just buy a hard drive of the same make and model and switch the circut boards.
If the BIOS doesn't do it, the OS, upon boot could simply instruct the drive not to accept password change commands. Which wouldn't stop a sufficient virus from sabatoging the next boot and setting it, but still it increases security.
Well, it's nice that Texas doesn't punish people who are productive, but Texas property and sales taxes are pretty high. (well not compaired to NY and CA or Boston, but high compaired to most places.)
.. es easy. The least proprietary technology always wins out. Not the prettiest, not the best designed or the most elloquent. Always the least proprietary.
That's how intel made it, that's how windows (ironically) made it, that's how the tcp/ip internet made it, and that's how linux is going to make it today and why it will simply kick butt.
The sad thing about Trusted Computing is that copyright enforcement is probably the one security problem it does not provide significant leverage for. Copyright is break once run anywhere.
This is not true, because efforts to impose "trusted computing" on all hardware by force of law. Even if an encryption scheme is broken, the media material could have embedded noise in it with a digital signature information and hardware could be mandated not to process any digital media or information unless it's properly signed.
Many of the posts above say Hurd is a waste of time. I suspect the Hurd team just enjoys hacking. I really don't think they care if its a "waste" of time. They just love what they do. I think it's awesome to be so dedicated to your craft. Even if the Hurd never works... I bet they will still look back on the whole experience as something pretty cool.
I agree it's cool, but I think Hurd deservs more credit. I sincerely think that Hurd has a better design, which is why it will eventually be successfull in the real world. Yes I know that there have been lots of better designs out there that never made it beond the lab or a small nitche - but this phenomina is a side effect of proprietary technology, not a natural occurence of design and progression. In the free (not as in beer) world, the technology that is better actually wins out.
I know of no show-stoppers that would prevent anything from working on Hurd that *IS* working on Linux now - even many of the modules. Hurd would simply make it easier to deal with the driver/interface space. Either Hurds main features will eventually make it into Linux (most likely), or the Linux base will eventually come to use Hurd more and more.
In some states, these parts of the contract are null and void because because state law guarantees the right to keep controll over things you do independently of your employer's time and resources.
I believe that most states with strong RnD have laws like this. But many contracts have these clauses anyhow as juat a catch-all and for the guy who doesn't know better.
The 4th clearly wasn't tough enough. It is simply all to esay to make up phony causes "like the war on drugs", like "catching terrorists" as an excuse to do anything they want. The 4th should have been much more demanding, and demanded harsh punishment for those who do anything that has the effect of weakening it.
Doesn't it occur to anyone that we just want to be treated like ordinary human beings, no matter what's between our legs? I mean, I'm not going to refuse if somebody throws money at me for having a vagina and using a computer, but it's really not a good way to encourage other girls to join the field
You know what, guys are physically and emotionally co-dependent on girls. We can't help it, we're pratcically born that way - and what isn't already built in is pounced into us solidly by our mothers before we grow up - and then even more so by girls when we become teens.
If you want guys to respect and accept girls for who they are, then you need to respect and accept guys for who they are too.