Contrary to popular belief, the IBM 4690 is a hardware cash register, that is basically an x86 in a fnacy case with alot propriatary interfaces to cash drawers, led displays, etc...
It can run any opperating system that an x86 does, but typically only runs dos, os2, and windows opperating systems. I imagine that it could and would run Linux but would be willing to bet that the drivers are not there for the periphials.
This is sorta of a continuation of discussion started the other day. ( see here) Basically the premise is that if intellignet life exists out there then there is a high probability that it's millions of years more advanced than us and that they would probably be engaged in massive civil engineering projects (such as arranging stars for pratical benefit) that would be observable from earth. The question is what would we look for that would be out of the ordinary?
I don't know? But I would imagine there would half to be rational indicators, whatever they are - even if we step back and say duh? why didn't I see that all along? Some of the data we used to discover new planets was there for years, but we just didn't consider to look at the right paramaters? The government can hide some things, but they can't hide the whole universe! Of course if we went to another planet and found say, DNA or bacteria - that would be a major discovery.
If I was looking I might look for something like two pulsars pulsing at the exact same rate and intensity and compare that to normal probability distributions. If they were singularities that were related via quantum "spookies", that could be very usefull, but statistically I would imagine it to be very rare.
Also, how do we know that foriegn intelligence isn't interacting with us now, but we just don't recognize it as such in our brains. For example, I know of no social rule that says humans half to doubble the speed per cost and size of semiconductors every 18 months. why 18, why not 23, why not 11? Why not variable? What influences the minds of these scientists and these companies to innovate at a rate that makes it every 18 months. And what about inventions - calcus was invented at two or more different places at once independently. So was the telephone, so was radio and tv, even the rubix cube - which is significant because the technology to make one of those existed thousands of years before hand. What is influenced that? and the inventors were isolated from each other socially and culturally to my understanding.
The premise still holds even if it is only a million years. If there is any other life out there - there is a high probability it came before us by a long time and that would leave effects that we should be able to observe.
I don't think it's a matter of stupidity or intelligence, if a caveman wandered by the san-onofre nuclear power plant he would surely be able to tell something was intellectually different even if he had no idea of what's going on.
I'm not sure about your theory on the level of advancement though. Evolution wise, the way it looks is that it's not a gradual spectrum of intelligence, but a threshold. For example, people who deal with the latest technologies all the time today are still able to recgonize pygmies of being equally intellignet, and the closest animal as not even being in the same ballpark.
So the question is - it is a one time threshold (eg enough to get to self observation, and after that it's just levels of knowledge and interaction) or is it a leveled threshold which above us is something else that we can't comprehend. And if so, how did it evolve from this to the next?
This doesn't really relate to the same story, but I just had a new theory about intelligent extraterestial life, and since no talk about space travel would be complete without the search for extraterestial life, here it goes....
lets say that there is an intelligent species that's about a billion years older than the human species. Then we can assume a few things.
a) their populations would likely have exponential growth like our's always has.
b) their technology will likely have had exponential growth like ours has
c) their societies would likely need to accomplish "big" projects like ours has to accomidate social changes like with the pyramids, the great wall of china, the hoover dam, and our big cities, which have distinctly changed earth's in a non natural way forever.
d) this would likely mean that at their stage of development they would be intefering in planetary orbits, star orbits, and possibly galactic orbits, and perhaps even creating artificial super-novas to achieve engineered goals.
e) human beings would be able to look for these changes (in the stars) that would be allowable by physics, but almost impossible in a natural un-tampered setting. From these we would be able to deduce the existence of intelligent life, know their level of development and resource needs, and the goals they were trying to accomplish and perhaps even develop a strategy for contact.
Whose right? I hate to tell you this, but copyrights are already unenforcable. The DMCA is now trying to restrict speech about how to copy to gain back controll. While enforceable copyrights are already long gone, you're never going to get rid of people who want to restrict more freedoms until you attack the remaining copyright revenue streams.
Only a fool would think this has anything to do with music and videos, it has to do with freedoms.
It is their right. Not to try to force you to pay after they've given it away free (by THEIR choice). But if they were to set up a viewing booth with a 'no cameras' stipulation, then they can choose to charge, and you have no right to get it free or to sell photos. Now for someone so happy to shout 'WRONG', do you spot the key difference between the two situations?
Yeah, but if they happened to set up a booth in my backyard without asking me, and I took pictures or looked anyhow - then tough luck for them. And if information of some form or another happens to come across my computer that I made no prior stipulation to?
As a person who believes in God (even though I am not necissarly too religous) I believe that God knows and sees everything I do, but for some reason this does not bother me. In this context, the problem is not that people can see or observe what I do, but rather their reactions, attitudes, and social impositions based off of their opinions or percieved personal benefits relating to what they think I should be doing.
Theologically, God has a reaction too (eg natural consequences). However, I trust the reactions of of God alot more than I do of men and government - even though I value justice (eg for a murderer) men are finite and don't always get it right.
EG. How much money I have is none of your business only because I dont want fools marketing me to death, friends bagering me, and the government being able to confiscate it at will. If I am isolated from these then I really don't care. A simple solution might be to let people have trade and bank accounts that are not linked to their identity, but secure enough for accountability.
Anyhow, I don't think governments can give us things like this. We need to secure them for ourselves through technology.
You guys are just pissed because you can't pump all that mass media crap everywhere for free. For some of us, who are tired of the mass market 'entertainment' we're glad it's being contained by the producers. I have no sympathy for the bandwidth hogs who pump the same digital images all over the 'net, interfering with real communications, which is a two-way process.
Why is it that everyone thinks that opposition to copyrights is just about kids who want to copy music or videos? And this is also dead wrong, copyrights promote a culture of hype over substance, they promote this "anything to get attention" attitude because that's what makes the most money. If you get rid of copyrights, then that will change.
Yes, last I renembered they died for things like freedom of speech. This freedom is directly being threatened by the DMCA today, and only a moron could deny it. Copying and immitating is a basic human right that is practiced from day we're born, the consequences of restricting it on learning, education, and culture will rip society to shreads as more laws like the DMCA are shoved down our throats. It is sickening to see people in such denial they spit on they very rights they exercise in promotion of such a farce and the prople who fought for them.
The DMCA is but a branch on a vine who'se seed is the attitude that it is alright to derive value by restricting the copying practices of others. Even if we can't attack the DMCA in the courts we can directly attack copyright laws by defiance and civil disobedience. I would say that it is not only all right, but a duty because so much is at stake. It is a simple solution that is non violent, non coercive, and relatively low risk, the fact that we have it so easy compaired to others who suffered and died for liberties is a blessing and an opportunity that should not be ignored or passed up.
No, the sad part is your children are growing up in a time when people think that knowledge can be "owned". If pythagoras were alive today and had patented "x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where would we be? If someone wants to make money off of "intellectual works", let them become a teacher.
I totally agree, the fact is that copying is not coercive or fradulent. It never ceases to amaze me that someone could think they're being violated when they're not. (Sorta like the days where plantation masters thought they were being stolen from and violated by the underground railroad) It is really a sick attitude about property. The problem isn't file sharing, the problem is individuals who think that they have some type of moral right to derive value by restricting the copying practices of others.
It is like a vine that has been growing more and more intrusive for 200 years, and will not relent in choking off our freedoms untill we attack it at the root. In fact, I would argue that defiance and civil disobedience are not just OK, they are a duty because this threat is so imment to the personal liberties of us and those we love.
However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something.
WRONG! Market share isn't a moral right. Maybe Ford has no incentive to make cars unless they can lock out the Japs. Maybe letting in the Japs deprives Ford of sales. Welcome to the real world
... This is what we pay for, folks. It is the effort that another went through to produce the music, the movie, the source code, or the book. It is not the idea
WRONG again. Mozart was paid for that too, but somehow that didn't mean a eternal monopoly on downstream copying. This is not about compensation for what anyone did, but a percieved right to controll peoples copying behavior after the cat's already out of the bag. Sorry, but you don't have that right even if you think you do.
If you believe that you should be able to enjoy someone else's work without justly compensating them for it, then you are a thief.
DEAD WRONG. I enjoyed looking at those two gilrs in scant cloths on the beach the other day. Sorry, I did not force them to reveal themselves, they chose to do so by their own free will. I owe them nothing. Maybe someone told them they were entitled to compensation for my pleasure. Sorry they're not. Maybe someone told them it was their right, sorry it is not. Dam, maybe I would even like to, but it is not a right. It just goes to show how such derivations of just value are delusional if not socially psychotic.
In the threads of this article, I've noticed alot of people saying the same thing - so I decided to respond here rather than to each one individually.
Man, how can I explain to people that the problem is copyrights and allowing any restriction on copying at all is a bad thing. God help me, but here it goes, just hear me out.....
About 400 years ago there was an innocent little practice in America called indentured servitude. It was for blacks and whites, it couldn't be inherited, and anybody could gain their own freedom and property after a few years work. It sounded like a good deal, but unfortunately this was but a seed for a vine whose growth we could not controll that led to ever increasing restrictions and abuse that eventually led to a bloody civil war and countless years worth of damage to the people who were caught in the slave culture.
Well the same is true with copyrights of even the smallest imposition. They are a seed who'se ultimate growth can only destroy us and the freedoms we value. In fact we can already clearly see it happening with their massive extensions, and the freedom of speech and the DMCA. The people who say "well, a little bit of copyrights are ok" I must admit sound pretty rational, but just don't get it. Dammit, I don't want to go through this just to pass the same bullshit down to my children. If we ever want to move on, we simply half to wipe the entire concept that it's ok to derive benefit by restricting the copying practices of others - period. For God's sake, how much of our freedom of speech is going to go to hell before people get it!
One more thing, it is bad enough that we have that seed planted and growing here, but that we are trying to plant it in other countries like China is unforgiveable. They do not have a government with checks and balances, and do not have a culture of freedom to protect them from the same pressures that we are suffering under now. What will happen when it becomes their turn, when trillions of dollars are at stake in their country, when enforcement goes unchecked? I really don't think people are thinking through the consequences of our copyright attitudes. Dammit, I hate this attitude people have about copyrights - please, just let it go.
I totally agree with that which is why the "copyright commons" project is so crazy. I envision millions of individual copyright holders nickeling and diming each other to death with a variety of specialized licenses and rules to the point that everybody is rendered incapable using the information they have right before them. By doing this he practically creates a tragedy of the commons where there was none before - or did I miss something?
... Lessig is promoting a program where the real IP creators, the artists and inventors, have a chance to regain some degree of control over their work.
This is better than what exists now, but there still exists a moral right as an individual to copy for the benefit of others or themselves no matter what a copyright holder says. In that sense, Lessings soltion decetralizes the threat, but does not get rid of it - making a tennable solution even more difficult.
Defiance and civil dosobedience is half the work and has twice the effect. I still think Lessing is in denial.
I don't mean to flame, but I think he's in denial. It does not look at what's going on from a pragmatic point of view. There are people out there who actually think that leveraging intellectual properties to their extremes are what the internet and the information age is all about. (Sort of aken to the days of those who thought that the industrial revolution was all about leveraging inventions like the cotton-gyn to extend their plantations to be thousands of times bigger) They were/are simply so dilusioned that we can almost be assured that there will be no compromizing till the bitter end.
As long as this attitude is in place we will continue to have DMCA pushers, and they will not back off on their irrational demands that all information be treated like peoperty. To come back with an attitude of compromize is pitifull. The only honest solution is defiance and civil disobedience of copyrights till people start to get it and can no longer afford to keep shoving irrational demands down our throats.
I happen to know that Lessing does not like this approach because he contends that it's extreme and that it won't get sympathy because it's "harmfull" to artists, but no one ever seems to look at the down-side of copyrights or they just assume on faith that it's less than the up-side. Well it's not about sympathy, society will come arround when the media runs out of money. It's about freedom, and how I have a moral right to apply it to my and other's benefit even if a copyright holder does not like that. There is no reason why people shouldn't act this way, and now with the internet they have the power to without having to get token permission or to purchase token licenses.
This is far more respective of creators then the copyright lords have ever been to them or us.
Actually, lets talk about the honesty of pirating. Last I checked, illegal copying is a lot different than boarding a ship, killing or beating the passengers to a bloody pulp while looting the goods (which they do not get to keep an original copy of BTW). The fact that they half to lie so hard about the name should be telling just in itself. Now really, is Microsoft not going to have an incentive to "innovate" unless they can lock out people in Africa from copying software?
Well, now we know what they were really talking about when Microsoft said they were going to place a new focus on security - "SecurityFocus", or focus on Linux security and not Microft security.
Of corse it's been known for a long time that Linux has more security flaws *REPORTED* simply because it 's open source, and people do alot of intense study of it's security. But this does not mean that Linux is less secure, it means that we find and fix security flaws faster than Microsoft can find them.
Bank notes is a matter of fraud, if I coppied a million and never used them to decieve anyone else - then really, would anybody care. Of course, if I coppied a Madonna CD and said I was Madonna - that would be a matter of fraud too. I wouldn't want that right even if I could pull it off. I suppose I should have said coercion and fraud. BTW the word "piracy" is a fradulent description of people who make coppies of software, music, and things.
Actually, I'll tell you something that nobody seems to get.
Piracy is where people board a ship, beat the hell out of people and kill them. It is coercive, copying is not. To copy something I do not need to force anyone else to do anything, in fact whoever I copy it from even keeps the original, and is not even interfered with at all.
However, when someone else prevents me from copying - they are acting coercively. (if they use copyright law) This is not a right. Next time you hear this, just renember copying is a very natural normal and human thing that people do from the day they're born. To copy is just as natural and human as is to create.
To whoever invents the next great energy creation tool that seems to put out more than it takes in - could you please do the rest of us and yourself a favor.
Keep it to yourself
Use electrolysys to make tons of hydrogen
Become a billionaire by selling it on the market at below market rates.
And when you die, let the world know how you did it in your will.
Now if they had only done this as recently as 10 years ago, then they and us might actually have gotten some real economic value out of this. Now it is merely destined to be a curiosity in the history of UNIX as Linux spreads all over the planet.
I'd like to say "I told you so", but now it's just a symbolic victory.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to popular belief, the IBM 4690 is a hardware cash register, that is basically an x86 in a fnacy case with alot propriatary interfaces to cash drawers, led displays, etc...
It can run any opperating system that an x86 does, but typically only runs dos, os2, and windows opperating systems. I imagine that it could and would run Linux but would be willing to bet that the drivers are not there for the periphials.
This is sorta of a continuation of discussion started the other day. ( see here) Basically the premise is that if intellignet life exists out there then there is a high probability that it's millions of years more advanced than us and that they would probably be engaged in massive civil engineering projects (such as arranging stars for pratical benefit) that would be observable from earth. The question is what would we look for that would be out of the ordinary?
I don't know? But I would imagine there would half to be rational indicators, whatever they are - even if we step back and say duh? why didn't I see that all along? Some of the data we used to discover new planets was there for years, but we just didn't consider to look at the right paramaters? The government can hide some things, but they can't hide the whole universe! Of course if we went to another planet and found say, DNA or bacteria - that would be a major discovery.
If I was looking I might look for something like two pulsars pulsing at the exact same rate and intensity and compare that to normal probability distributions. If they were singularities that were related via quantum "spookies", that could be very usefull, but statistically I would imagine it to be very rare.
Also, how do we know that foriegn intelligence isn't interacting with us now, but we just don't recognize it as such in our brains. For example, I know of no social rule that says humans half to doubble the speed per cost and size of semiconductors every 18 months. why 18, why not 23, why not 11? Why not variable? What influences the minds of these scientists and these companies to innovate at a rate that makes it every 18 months. And what about inventions - calcus was invented at two or more different places at once independently. So was the telephone, so was radio and tv, even the rubix cube - which is significant because the technology to make one of those existed thousands of years before hand. What is influenced that? and the inventors were isolated from each other socially and culturally to my understanding.
The premise still holds even if it is only a million years. If there is any other life out there - there is a high probability it came before us by a long time and that would leave effects that we should be able to observe.
I don't think it's a matter of stupidity or intelligence, if a caveman wandered by the san-onofre nuclear power plant he would surely be able to tell something was intellectually different even if he had no idea of what's going on.
I'm not sure about your theory on the level of advancement though. Evolution wise, the way it looks is that it's not a gradual spectrum of intelligence, but a threshold. For example, people who deal with the latest technologies all the time today are still able to recgonize pygmies of being equally intellignet, and the closest animal as not even being in the same ballpark.
So the question is - it is a one time threshold (eg enough to get to self observation, and after that it's just levels of knowledge and interaction) or is it a leveled threshold which above us is something else that we can't comprehend. And if so, how did it evolve from this to the next?
This doesn't really relate to the same story, but I just had a new theory about intelligent extraterestial life, and since no talk about space travel would be complete without the search for extraterestial life, here it goes....
lets say that there is an intelligent species that's about a billion years older than the human species. Then we can assume a few things.
a) their populations would likely have exponential growth like our's always has.
b) their technology will likely have had exponential growth like ours has
c) their societies would likely need to accomplish "big" projects like ours has to accomidate social changes like with the pyramids, the great wall of china, the hoover dam, and our big cities, which have distinctly changed earth's in a non natural way forever.
d) this would likely mean that at their stage of development they would be intefering in planetary orbits, star orbits, and possibly galactic orbits, and perhaps even creating artificial super-novas to achieve engineered goals.
e) human beings would be able to look for these changes (in the stars) that would be allowable by physics, but almost impossible in a natural un-tampered setting. From these we would be able to deduce the existence of intelligent life, know their level of development and resource needs, and the goals they were trying to accomplish and perhaps even develop a strategy for contact.
Whose right? I hate to tell you this, but copyrights are already unenforcable. The DMCA is now trying to restrict speech about how to copy to gain back controll. While enforceable copyrights are already long gone, you're never going to get rid of people who want to restrict more freedoms until you attack the remaining copyright revenue streams.
Only a fool would think this has anything to do with music and videos, it has to do with freedoms.
It is their right. Not to try to force you to pay after they've given it away free (by THEIR choice). But if they were to set up a viewing booth with a 'no cameras' stipulation, then they can choose to charge, and you have no right to get it free or to sell photos. Now for someone so happy to shout 'WRONG', do you spot the key difference between the two situations?
Yeah, but if they happened to set up a booth in my backyard without asking me, and I took pictures or looked anyhow - then tough luck for them. And if information of some form or another happens to come across my computer that I made no prior stipulation to?
As a person who believes in God (even though I am not necissarly too religous) I believe that God knows and sees everything I do, but for some reason this does not bother me. In this context, the problem is not that people can see or observe what I do, but rather their reactions, attitudes, and social impositions based off of their opinions or percieved personal benefits relating to what they think I should be doing.
Theologically, God has a reaction too (eg natural consequences). However, I trust the reactions of of God alot more than I do of men and government - even though I value justice (eg for a murderer) men are finite and don't always get it right.
EG. How much money I have is none of your business only because I dont want fools marketing me to death, friends bagering me, and the government being able to confiscate it at will. If I am isolated from these then I really don't care. A simple solution might be to let people have trade and bank accounts that are not linked to their identity, but secure enough for accountability.
Anyhow, I don't think governments can give us things like this. We need to secure them for ourselves through technology.
You guys are just pissed because you can't pump all that mass media crap everywhere for free. For some of us, who are tired of the mass market 'entertainment' we're glad it's being contained by the producers. I have no sympathy for the bandwidth hogs who pump the same digital images all over the 'net, interfering with real communications, which is a two-way process.
Why is it that everyone thinks that opposition to copyrights is just about kids who want to copy music or videos? And this is also dead wrong, copyrights promote a culture of hype over substance, they promote this "anything to get attention" attitude because that's what makes the most money. If you get rid of copyrights, then that will change.
Yes, last I renembered they died for things like freedom of speech. This freedom is directly being threatened by the DMCA today, and only a moron could deny it. Copying and immitating is a basic human right that is practiced from day we're born, the consequences of restricting it on learning, education, and culture will rip society to shreads as more laws like the DMCA are shoved down our throats. It is sickening to see people in such denial they spit on they very rights they exercise in promotion of such a farce and the prople who fought for them.
The DMCA is but a branch on a vine who'se seed is the attitude that it is alright to derive value by restricting the copying practices of others. Even if we can't attack the DMCA in the courts we can directly attack copyright laws by defiance and civil disobedience. I would say that it is not only all right, but a duty because so much is at stake. It is a simple solution that is non violent, non coercive, and relatively low risk, the fact that we have it so easy compaired to others who suffered and died for liberties is a blessing and an opportunity that should not be ignored or passed up.
No, the sad part is your children are growing up in a time when people think that knowledge can be "owned". If pythagoras were alive today and had patented "x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where would we be? If someone wants to make money off of "intellectual works", let them become a teacher.
I totally agree, the fact is that copying is not coercive or fradulent. It never ceases to amaze me that someone could think they're being violated when they're not. (Sorta like the days where plantation masters thought they were being stolen from and violated by the underground railroad) It is really a sick attitude about property. The problem isn't file sharing, the problem is individuals who think that they have some type of moral right to derive value by restricting the copying practices of others. It is like a vine that has been growing more and more intrusive for 200 years, and will not relent in choking off our freedoms untill we attack it at the root. In fact, I would argue that defiance and civil disobedience are not just OK, they are a duty because this threat is so imment to the personal liberties of us and those we love.
However, if that person who downloads music for free would have bought the CD had it not been available for download, then yes, the artist has lost something.
WRONG! Market share isn't a moral right. Maybe Ford has no incentive to make cars unless they can lock out the Japs. Maybe letting in the Japs deprives Ford of sales. Welcome to the real world
WRONG again. Mozart was paid for that too, but somehow that didn't mean a eternal monopoly on downstream copying. This is not about compensation for what anyone did, but a percieved right to controll peoples copying behavior after the cat's already out of the bag. Sorry, but you don't have that right even if you think you do.
If you believe that you should be able to enjoy someone else's work without justly compensating them for it, then you are a thief.
DEAD WRONG. I enjoyed looking at those two gilrs in scant cloths on the beach the other day. Sorry, I did not force them to reveal themselves, they chose to do so by their own free will. I owe them nothing. Maybe someone told them they were entitled to compensation for my pleasure. Sorry they're not. Maybe someone told them it was their right, sorry it is not. Dam, maybe I would even like to, but it is not a right. It just goes to show how such derivations of just value are delusional if not socially psychotic.
In the threads of this article, I've noticed alot of people saying the same thing - so I decided to respond here rather than to each one individually.
Man, how can I explain to people that the problem is copyrights and allowing any restriction on copying at all is a bad thing. God help me, but here it goes, just hear me out.....
About 400 years ago there was an innocent little practice in America called indentured servitude. It was for blacks and whites, it couldn't be inherited, and anybody could gain their own freedom and property after a few years work. It sounded like a good deal, but unfortunately this was but a seed for a vine whose growth we could not controll that led to ever increasing restrictions and abuse that eventually led to a bloody civil war and countless years worth of damage to the people who were caught in the slave culture.
Well the same is true with copyrights of even the smallest imposition. They are a seed who'se ultimate growth can only destroy us and the freedoms we value. In fact we can already clearly see it happening with their massive extensions, and the freedom of speech and the DMCA. The people who say "well, a little bit of copyrights are ok" I must admit sound pretty rational, but just don't get it. Dammit, I don't want to go through this just to pass the same bullshit down to my children. If we ever want to move on, we simply half to wipe the entire concept that it's ok to derive benefit by restricting the copying practices of others - period. For God's sake, how much of our freedom of speech is going to go to hell before people get it!
One more thing, it is bad enough that we have that seed planted and growing here, but that we are trying to plant it in other countries like China is unforgiveable. They do not have a government with checks and balances, and do not have a culture of freedom to protect them from the same pressures that we are suffering under now. What will happen when it becomes their turn, when trillions of dollars are at stake in their country, when enforcement goes unchecked? I really don't think people are thinking through the consequences of our copyright attitudes. Dammit, I hate this attitude people have about copyrights - please, just let it go.
I totally agree with that which is why the "copyright commons" project is so crazy. I envision millions of individual copyright holders nickeling and diming each other to death with a variety of specialized licenses and rules to the point that everybody is rendered incapable using the information they have right before them. By doing this he practically creates a tragedy of the commons where there was none before - or did I miss something?
This is better than what exists now, but there still exists a moral right as an individual to copy for the benefit of others or themselves no matter what a copyright holder says. In that sense, Lessings soltion decetralizes the threat, but does not get rid of it - making a tennable solution even more difficult.
Defiance and civil dosobedience is half the work and has twice the effect. I still think Lessing is in denial.
I don't mean to flame, but I think he's in denial. It does not look at what's going on from a pragmatic point of view. There are people out there who actually think that leveraging intellectual properties to their extremes are what the internet and the information age is all about. (Sort of aken to the days of those who thought that the industrial revolution was all about leveraging inventions like the cotton-gyn to extend their plantations to be thousands of times bigger) They were/are simply so dilusioned that we can almost be assured that there will be no compromizing till the bitter end.
As long as this attitude is in place we will continue to have DMCA pushers, and they will not back off on their irrational demands that all information be treated like peoperty. To come back with an attitude of compromize is pitifull. The only honest solution is defiance and civil disobedience of copyrights till people start to get it and can no longer afford to keep shoving irrational demands down our throats.
I happen to know that Lessing does not like this approach because he contends that it's extreme and that it won't get sympathy because it's "harmfull" to artists, but no one ever seems to look at the down-side of copyrights or they just assume on faith that it's less than the up-side. Well it's not about sympathy, society will come arround when the media runs out of money. It's about freedom, and how I have a moral right to apply it to my and other's benefit even if a copyright holder does not like that. There is no reason why people shouldn't act this way, and now with the internet they have the power to without having to get token permission or to purchase token licenses.
This is far more respective of creators then the copyright lords have ever been to them or us.
Actually, lets talk about the honesty of pirating. Last I checked, illegal copying is a lot different than boarding a ship, killing or beating the passengers to a bloody pulp while looting the goods (which they do not get to keep an original copy of BTW). The fact that they half to lie so hard about the name should be telling just in itself. Now really, is Microsoft not going to have an incentive to "innovate" unless they can lock out people in Africa from copying software?
Well, now we know what they were really talking about when Microsoft said they were going to place a new focus on security - "SecurityFocus", or focus on Linux security and not Microft security.
Of corse it's been known for a long time that Linux has more security flaws *REPORTED* simply because it 's open source, and people do alot of intense study of it's security. But this does not mean that Linux is less secure, it means that we find and fix security flaws faster than Microsoft can find them.
Bank notes is a matter of fraud, if I coppied a million and never used them to decieve anyone else - then really, would anybody care. Of course, if I coppied a Madonna CD and said I was Madonna - that would be a matter of fraud too. I wouldn't want that right even if I could pull it off. I suppose I should have said coercion and fraud. BTW the word "piracy" is a fradulent description of people who make coppies of software, music, and things.
Gee, and all this time I thought their security didn't work because it was cripple-ware.
Actually, I'll tell you something that nobody seems to get.
Piracy is where people board a ship, beat the hell out of people and kill them. It is coercive, copying is not. To copy something I do not need to force anyone else to do anything, in fact whoever I copy it from even keeps the original, and is not even interfered with at all.
However, when someone else prevents me from copying - they are acting coercively. (if they use copyright law) This is not a right. Next time you hear this, just renember copying is a very natural normal and human thing that people do from the day they're born. To copy is just as natural and human as is to create.
To whoever invents the next great energy creation tool that seems to put out more than it takes in - could you please do the rest of us and yourself a favor.
Keep it to yourself
Use electrolysys to make tons of hydrogen
Become a billionaire by selling it on the market at below market rates.
And when you die, let the world know how you did it in your will.
Thank you
If Reuters science is this bad, makes you wander about the accuracy of their other news sources.
Now if they had only done this as recently as 10 years ago, then they and us might actually have gotten some real economic value out of this. Now it is merely destined to be a curiosity in the history of UNIX as Linux spreads all over the planet.
I'd like to say "I told you so", but now it's just a symbolic victory.