Re:Why we stayed clear of the GPL
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Actually you could have used GPLv2 only code, if you were so worried about GPLv3. If you did not really want to release your code then it would have been better to use BSD code only. Which was fine for your web application. But BSD is not really good if you want to get support from outside company. Anyway GPL is good for software created wholly inside (with external efforts accepted only after ownership transfer). BSD is good if you don't care for outside help.
Those "some of us" are declining in their percentage, precisely because of the Dictatorship is the most free system, effect. BSDs lose lots of developers because a company can pick them up, pick the code and keep it to themselves. With GPL they can't do so, they can take the code but since they have to give the modifications back there is not much point in making the resulting the code proprietary. So even if they pick up developers and the code, the code does not lose its developers. Its also better for the developers. All the Top Linux developers are employed with companies but they still contribute a lot to Linux. Contrast the situation to the case of BSDs the developers have only two options either support themselves via freelancing or some other job, or give up working on BSD in the open and get employed at a company developing a proprietary version. I don't think BSD license helps its developers.
Its not like BSD is a useless license, it has a specific application and that is developing new languages and protocols. In these cases you want everybody including proprietary interests to use your code in their product to allow better interoperability. This is why BSD license was the right license for use when Unix was young. But now that it is very widespread BSD actually doesn't make sense for OS development. I would think that it would be a better license for the Gecko engine of the Mozilla code, than GPL.
Before newspapers could ask Google to remove their entry only from Google News. But now with it merged with the normal search, it will be a much worse choice. Asking Google to not index your website is now equivalent of committing hara-kiri on the net.
The difference between BSD style freedom and GPL style freedom is the same as the difference between a government that makes no laws and a government that makes laws by taking aways some of your freedoms (basically those freedoms that take away others freedom). When thinking about the two styles don't look at it from the point of view of the developers but from the point of view of a software project. Which is a good license for a software project GPL or BSD. Any company can come in and kill a BSD project by hiring away the best people and making those peoples output proprietary. This drains up a project and leaves it high and dry. On the other hand the same cannot be done for a GPL project. There is no way you can hire away the best people from a project and make their output proprietary, because then you will need to develop the same project in house without using the open code. This takes away the most important incentive for a company. So a project is healthier when licensed under the GPL, compared to BSD projects. Its no wonder that Linux is where it is, and BSD is nowhere. I don't think that BSDs would have succeeded over linux, even if AT&T lawsuit was not there. The project would always be anemic compared to what Linux did. And the other thing is that there is no better manager than Linus.
Laserdisk was the result of a technology, which resulted in CDs and later DVDs. So it will still be beneficial for the early market, one which really needs the storage capacities of the disk to try it out. Ofcourse they will have to be rich enough to be able to throw that money for trying it out.
Actually the idea is (or at least should be) that patent should be awarded to those ideas that will require some amount of research to re-search it. If an idea is so obvious that you (being an expert in the field) don't need to spend a few months searching for it then there is no case for patenting it.
Obviously a person hitting on an idea just by a stroke of genius is still covered because another expert in the same field without the stroke of genius would still need to spend a few months of effort to find it.
If it was not religion inspired it could have been more sane. ie one or possibly two holiday per person, the holiday could be anyday. The current trend of having sunday for everyday is bad. Because a holiday does not mean a rest day, and rest is forced on a person who would like to go shopping on his holiday;-).
At-least Google doesn't roll over at the slight request from government like the other companies. Or do you think that Yahoo, MSN, etc don't save your searches. What about your bank, your doctor, are you sure they keep your data safe. At least Google tries to fight, where the rest of them would actually sell your data. Google at least knows that they can directly make more profit from your data without selling it, and will protect it for that reason.
I don't really expect the future to provide us any privacy, I just hope that everybody is equally violated. That way the more popular people are going to get the worse end of it including government officials compared to a no-name person like me.
Actually they did go to Yahoo etc, with their ideas, but everybody turned them down. All they had wanted was a measly 1 million dollars for their algorithm. Actually for some researchers creating an startup is too much of an effort, but if they can get their research out to the people by selling it, they will be very ready for it.
The article gives 4 groups that are afraid of Google. 1) MS, Yahoo - MS I hate. Yahoo I don't care. In all it is positive. 2) Raised salaries - I am a programmer, I love them. 3) MPAA and RIAA are afraid - This makes me love Google more than anything else. 4) Privacy Advocates - I think this is a bit of a problem, but going forward, I believe that privacy will only be a figment of our imagination. I would just hope that all people have equal venues to violate privacy of others, rather than having one group more equal than others.
Copyright, when it was created, was not created with the view of giving control or even encouraging authors. It was created for the express purpose of giving publishers an incentive for publishing works. At the time (as now), typesetting and proofreading was a major expense. Although printing was also a big expense but still the publisher would have to amortize those costs over a large time. This required that the publisher have some control on the work. It used to happen before copywrite law that a publisher would publish a work and immediately another one would make a copy of it. Making a copy was much cheaper because proofreading and other creative issues could be simply copied.
The copywrite law did allow the author to be able to sell his work to a publisher, because that was the only way to arbitrate who got the write to publish the work. At that time Copyright was necessary for getting a work published. But now Copywrite is posing a big problem with the dissemination of works because the landscape has changed and authors can be publishers. The publisher as a separate entity is not required.
I also agree that a limit of 10 years for copyrights would be OK provided that it is necessary to register copyrights (no automatic copyrights), and the copyrighted work would be provided with the copyright office. Also it would be necessary to re-register before 5 years are passed with the copyright office. I would think that re-registrations should be made quite expensive, so that only works that are really profitable should be re-registered.
Point 1: It is not a marketing ploy, true, but it is a recruiting ploy. So you can't say that the Summer of Code is due to an Altruistic motive. That is better than an Altruistic motive. I don't really believe in Altruistic motives. An altruistic motive will always have an irrational thought behind it. I prefer a person who does good because it helps him by making the surrounding better, than a person who does good because he thinks that it is a good thing to do. Doing good because it is a good thing to do is an irrational motive. This is the cause of all evil. Because what you think is good may not actually be good for others. Also this kind of people always end up being bitter in the end. Because they expect others to understand what they are doing, which they are not entitled to.
Point 2: They are not a monopoly. They are just the largest advertisers. The reason they are the largest advertiser is that they control the largest number of eye-balls. The reason they have the largest number of eye-balls, is that they try to make the best eye-ball catchers, and they don't compromise their catchers, by letting their customers control them. They actually understand that putting their customers preferences beyond those of their users is detrimental for them. And they will continue to succeed till their competition understands this. Maybe Yahoo understands this, but MS definitely doesn't.
This means that there are no differences between GR and MOND in the gravitational limit that this test has been conducted. This means that MOND will have the same problem that GR has, if the tests don't come out as predicted. I guess in this case the tests will be considered to be faulty, as there are literally no theories (that are not considered crackpot) that give different results different from GR in the strong field regime. So the tests by Gravity Probe B will not make any difference, though it probably will give GR theorists something more to brag about.
There is a big misconception about MOND, that it is a theory. It is not, it is a law that works very well at the Galactic Level and somewhat at the cluster level. MOND fits all galactic level data to the limit of their expected accuracy. This it does so with a single universal constant. But nobody knows why it works so well.
As such it is very obvious there is something behind MOND. GR cannot explain MOND without fine tuning DM in such a way to give rise to MOND. But since MOND uses only Baryonic matter, it leaves DM with no degrees of freedom, which is not possible, so DM must not exist at the Galactic level.
At Cluster level situation is different MOND does not match up with the missing mass. Which means either there is Dark Matter at the Cluster level or MOND itself is a reasonable approximation of the correct theory of gravity only in the galactic limit. Beyond the galactic level it ceases to be a good approximation.
If there is dark matter at the cluster level then there must be a reason why it does not exhibit itself at galactic levels. This would meant that the dark matter is hot and moving at a high velocity, which allows it to form stable structure only at the cluster scales.
The interesting thing about the universal constant (a0) of MOND, is that if a particle is accelerated by a0 for the whole life of universe then we will get the speed of light. This would seem to provide a hint that a0 is due to the curvature of the universe.
This actually solves a problem in GR. If GR is absolutely correct then the curvature of the universe cannot be determined, which is also called the flatness problem. This problem is currently avoided by assuming that there was an inflationary era when the universe expanded so much that we only see a very small part of the universe which is flat. So that GR equations are correct. But if that is not true and the universe is not really that big then GR will break down because of no fault of itself, but simply because of the curvature of the universe.
So in my opinion GR is correct but the curvature modifies GR in such a way that we observe MOND.
The thing is that this effect has been tested at strong gravity. There is no dispute that GR is not correct in the strong gravity limit. The strength of GR is only disputed at weak gravity, or near Planck's length. It is a good verification of GR, but I don't think anybody thought that it will not be vindicated.
We need a probe to test GR at L1 point if the gravity there is significantly weaker than a0 to distinguish between MOND and DM. This IMHO is the most important test. If it is not possible to test MOND at L1 point, because the MONDian bubble is too small then there is no hope for a test within the next decade. Because that is how much time a very modern satellite will take to reach beyond the solar system where the gravity is significantly weaker than a0.
When you do the downloading, the server copies the bits and sends it over to the internet. When it has arrived on your system then you are simply saving it into a file. If you went into the ridiculous definition of ram copies, then you could not even play your Media on a computer. Those are just incidental copies.
So rule (1) does not apply on the downloader. Yes, RIAA could still make it stick, if they found a judge who doesn't know computers (the vast majority out there and so a near certainty).
I don't think money is a big part of this problem. Bigger problems are independence and creative urge. Some people cannot depend on their spouse for the rest of their lives for support. That is a very difficult decision for any independent person. It also requires perfect trust in your partner. The second big problem is that if a person has worked for some time, they miss the interaction with their peers. Living at home and interacting with people around you, that don't have similar interest as you is not that interesting. It makes people bored to death.
The solution really is Telecommuting. That is the only way we will see better child support and lower divorce rates.
Anybody who goes into double income just for the money, is being stupid. Double income does not increase standard of life. It does increase the chance that you will fall out of love, and that there will be a divorce and children will suffer in the. Even when the worst scenario does not happen children still get neglected, which is not good for them.
MOND predicts the break down of GR at galaxy scales. If GR does not work at the galactic scale then it is meaningless apply it at larger scales. DM may still survive, because MOND needs it at the scale of cluster of galaxies, but that doesn't mean that we will need Dark Energy. It may be that as Gravity becomes stronger at lower accelerations, it may become repulsive at cosmic scales. This is a preliminary result of Conformal Gravity. All other forces are explained quantified Conformal Field Theories, and it makes it highly probable that gravity is also explained by another Conformal Field theory.
Step 6. Determine how much mass must be in the galaxy in order to provide the necessary centripetal acceleration to create the observed rotational speed using MOND, instead of GR. Step 7. Compare answers from Step 4 and Step 6. Step 8. Smack yourself in the head when you realize that there is no mass discrepancy. Then realize that GR is providing wrong answers to the questions posed by the Galaxies.
MOND is ignored by most of the scientific community although it has been giving good results since 25+ years. It has made testable predictions and all have been proved correct. There has been no failures reported so far, including Bullet Cluster, which poses bigger problems for Dark Matter (ie requiring a new interaction between DM) than MOND.
It is not just a equation. It is a theory, which means that it contains a lot more features than a single equation. The equation is actually derived from the theory. The theory ie GR is very simple conceptually, that the speed of light is constant and mass curves the space it exists in. Everything follows from there. To change it will be very difficult. Now GR has 10 parameters of symmetry, we could go to higher symmetry eg 15, which is Conformal Symmetry and is observed for the other 3 forces. This will cause different equations of motion. Also Quantization will need to be done just like the other three forces. So what follows is a very complicated theory, which although in essence is very simply defined. We are probing this theory from multiple angles at the present time. Loop Quantum Gravity or LQG is doing it from the bottom, and Conformal Gravity is doing it from the large scale to small. They will meet sometime;-). I am now of the opinion that the bottom up approach may have a higher chance of succeeding. Lookup Conformally Deformed Special Relativity or CDSR, which is an outgrowth of LQG.
Actually MOND makes it more easy for Dark Galaxies made up of hot and massive neutrinos to exist, because it makes gravity stronger. So yes, entire galaxies of hot and massive neutrinos are possible, and probably are present in most Clusters of galaxies. MOND shows that there is some matter missing from these Clusters. So the presence of Dark Matter is not fatal to MOND. The presence of Cold Dark Matter may be problematic, but still not fatal. The only thing that will be fatal to MOND will be if we find a body of mass that has more observable mass than it predicts.
GR does not work at Galactic Levels, so there is no question of it working at the Cosmic levels.
The real problem is MOND. If it did not exist then Dark Matter would be free to exist wherever it wanted. But with MOND the picture becomes more complex, now DM must fit MOND. It is quite easily provable that DM cannot fit MOND, just apply it to small cluster of stars at the outer edge of Milky Way which show Dark Matter. The problem is that for DM to fit Milky Way, it cannot be present in the Clusters. But some clusters do require DM. Now MOND fits both reasonably.
I understand that Quantum Physics is a set of equations which don't make much sense outside the realm of its mathematics, but it does make testable predictions.
Now Dark Matter is a different beast. It is added to fit any observation. It does not allow you to make any prediction. It is simply a device to fit GR into observations. Normally this would not be a bad idea, except for the really unfortunate case that MOND does fit all galactic observations without needing any Dark Matter. This is really unfortunate for Dark Matter because now it must fit MOND. The Dark Matter theorists when faced with this predicament simply ignore it pointing out its ugly face.
The really funny thing is that Dark Matter is supposed to be Cold. This should allow it to clump in large objects. Then what happens when this big object would collide with normal matter. It cannot interact electromagnetically, which is how all our collisions happen. What will happen?
The problem is that the Dark Matter seems to be moving at a much faster rate than expected. So now the Relativists are posing a new interaction that only works between Dark Matter;-). They don't concede defeat easily, those Relativists.
The colliding galaxies you are talking about is not really colliding galaxies, but colliding clusters of galaxies, this one is called the Bullet Cluster. A cluster of galaxies is a huge body of matter, which is not adequately explained by the only other competing postulate MOND. MOND requires some dark matter to exist for it to fit the cluster of galaxies, but it can do so currently by using hot and massive neutrinos, instead of unobserved weird dark matter particles.
But the real problem with using dark matter in either GR or MOND is that the dark matter should have a much smaller velocity than what is being observed, in the Bullet Cluster. Now the Dark Matter proponents are positing a new interaction that works only between dark matter. While MOND people are just scratching their heads not able to fit that aspect of the problem. You see that GR people have grown so accustomed to fudging factors by postulating new objects that they don't even stop to think that they are going in circles, just like the scientists in the age of Plato.
I do believe that there is light at the end of tunnel. Loop Quantum Gravity people are going in somewhat the right direction. The only failing being that they are trying to fit Relativity, which I don't believe is the correct one, it only arises in a small section of the universe where the curvature of the universe is not observable, eg our solar system. An offshoot of LQG is Doubly Special Relativity (ie there are two universal constants the Planck's constant and speed of light), which tries to include Planck's constant in Special Relativity, by deforming it. Now another guy has made a new theory by using Conformal symmetry to deform Special Relativity, this effort leads to CDSR which gives a natural explanation for the MOND phenomenology.
The interest in Conformal field theory of gravity is because the other three forces are a form of Quantized Conformal Field Theories. I am hoping that CDSR will make a connection with Conformal Gravity, at some level, and provide some insight into getting a sane Quantum Gravity Theory, which will incorporate both Quantum theory and Relativity.
I don't understand how Tully Fisher relation comes about in GR+DM. It can come from MOND on the other hand. I don't understand why the article was totally silent on Dark Matter. Tully Fisher relation is very specific to Spiral galaxies, how did they apply it to other galaxy types without using any underlying theory. What was that theory, if it was not MOND or GR+DM.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually you could have used GPLv2 only code, if you were so worried about GPLv3. If you did not really want to release your code then it would have been better to use BSD code only. Which was fine for your web application. But BSD is not really good if you want to get support from outside company. Anyway GPL is good for software created wholly inside (with external efforts accepted only after ownership transfer). BSD is good if you don't care for outside help.
Those "some of us" are declining in their percentage, precisely because of the Dictatorship is the most free system, effect. BSDs lose lots of developers because a company can pick them up, pick the code and keep it to themselves. With GPL they can't do so, they can take the code but since they have to give the modifications back there is not much point in making the resulting the code proprietary. So even if they pick up developers and the code, the code does not lose its developers. Its also better for the developers. All the Top Linux developers are employed with companies but they still contribute a lot to Linux. Contrast the situation to the case of BSDs the developers have only two options either support themselves via freelancing or some other job, or give up working on BSD in the open and get employed at a company developing a proprietary version. I don't think BSD license helps its developers.
Its not like BSD is a useless license, it has a specific application and that is developing new languages and protocols. In these cases you want everybody including proprietary interests to use your code in their product to allow better interoperability. This is why BSD license was the right license for use when Unix was young. But now that it is very widespread BSD actually doesn't make sense for OS development. I would think that it would be a better license for the Gecko engine of the Mozilla code, than GPL.
Before newspapers could ask Google to remove their entry only from Google News. But now with it merged with the normal search, it will be a much worse choice. Asking Google to not index your website is now equivalent of committing hara-kiri on the net.
The difference between BSD style freedom and GPL style freedom is the same as the difference between a government that makes no laws and a government that makes laws by taking aways some of your freedoms (basically those freedoms that take away others freedom).
When thinking about the two styles don't look at it from the point of view of the developers but from the point of view of a software project. Which is a good license for a software project GPL or BSD. Any company can come in and kill a BSD project by hiring away the best people and making those peoples output proprietary. This drains up a project and leaves it high and dry. On the other hand the same cannot be done for a GPL project. There is no way you can hire away the best people from a project and make their output proprietary, because then you will need to develop the same project in house without using the open code. This takes away the most important incentive for a company.
So a project is healthier when licensed under the GPL, compared to BSD projects. Its no wonder that Linux is where it is, and BSD is nowhere. I don't think that BSDs would have succeeded over linux, even if AT&T lawsuit was not there. The project would always be anemic compared to what Linux did. And the other thing is that there is no better manager than Linus.
Laserdisk was the result of a technology, which resulted in CDs and later DVDs. So it will still be beneficial for the early market, one which really needs the storage capacities of the disk to try it out. Ofcourse they will have to be rich enough to be able to throw that money for trying it out.
Actually the idea is (or at least should be) that patent should be awarded to those ideas that will require some amount of research to re-search it. If an idea is so obvious that you (being an expert in the field) don't need to spend a few months searching for it then there is no case for patenting it.
Obviously a person hitting on an idea just by a stroke of genius is still covered because another expert in the same field without the stroke of genius would still need to spend a few months of effort to find it.
If it was not religion inspired it could have been more sane. ie one or possibly two holiday per person, the holiday could be anyday. The current trend of having sunday for everyday is bad. Because a holiday does not mean a rest day, and rest is forced on a person who would like to go shopping on his holiday ;-).
That is a side-effect of being on-line.
At-least Google doesn't roll over at the slight request from government like the other companies.
Or do you think that Yahoo, MSN, etc don't save your searches. What about your bank, your doctor,
are you sure they keep your data safe. At least Google tries to fight, where the rest of them would
actually sell your data. Google at least knows that they can directly make more profit from your data
without selling it, and will protect it for that reason.
I don't really expect the future to provide us any privacy, I just hope that everybody is equally violated.
That way the more popular people are going to get the worse end of it including government officials
compared to a no-name person like me.
Actually they did go to Yahoo etc, with their ideas, but everybody turned them down.
All they had wanted was a measly 1 million dollars for their algorithm.
Actually for some researchers creating an startup is too much of an effort, but if they can get their research out to the people by selling it, they will be very ready for it.
The article gives 4 groups that are afraid of Google.
1) MS, Yahoo - MS I hate. Yahoo I don't care. In all it is positive.
2) Raised salaries - I am a programmer, I love them.
3) MPAA and RIAA are afraid - This makes me love Google more than anything else.
4) Privacy Advocates - I think this is a bit of a problem, but going forward,
I believe that privacy will only be a figment of our imagination.
I would just hope that all people have equal venues to violate privacy of others,
rather than having one group more equal than others.
Copyright, when it was created, was not created with the view of giving control or even encouraging authors. It was created for the express purpose of giving publishers an incentive for publishing works. At the time (as now), typesetting and proofreading was a major expense. Although printing was also a big expense but still the publisher would have to amortize those costs over a large time. This required that the publisher have some control on the work. It used to happen before copywrite law that a publisher would publish a work and immediately another one would make a copy of it. Making a copy was much cheaper because proofreading and other creative issues could be simply copied.
The copywrite law did allow the author to be able to sell his work to a publisher, because that was the only way to arbitrate who got the write to publish the work. At that time Copyright was necessary for getting a work published. But now Copywrite is posing a big problem with the dissemination of works because the landscape has changed and authors can be publishers. The publisher as a separate entity is not required.
I also agree that a limit of 10 years for copyrights would be OK provided that it is necessary to register copyrights (no automatic copyrights), and the copyrighted work would be provided with the copyright office. Also it would be necessary to re-register before 5 years are passed with the copyright office. I would think that re-registrations should be made quite expensive, so that only works that are really profitable should be re-registered.
Point 1: It is not a marketing ploy, true, but it is a recruiting ploy. So you can't say that the Summer of Code is due to an Altruistic motive. That is better than an Altruistic motive. I don't really believe in Altruistic motives. An altruistic motive will always have an irrational thought behind it. I prefer a person who does good because it helps him by making the surrounding better, than a person who does good because he thinks that it is a good thing to do. Doing good because it is a good thing to do is an irrational motive. This is the cause of all evil. Because what you think is good may not actually be good for others. Also this kind of people always end up being bitter in the end. Because they expect others to understand what they are doing, which they are not entitled to.
Point 2: They are not a monopoly. They are just the largest advertisers. The reason they are the largest advertiser is that they control the largest number of eye-balls. The reason they have the largest number of eye-balls, is that they try to make the best eye-ball catchers, and they don't compromise their catchers, by letting their customers control them. They actually understand that putting their customers preferences beyond those of their users is detrimental for them. And they will continue to succeed till their competition understands this. Maybe Yahoo understands this, but MS definitely doesn't.
This means that there are no differences between GR and MOND in the gravitational limit that this test has been conducted. This means that MOND will have the same problem that GR has, if the tests don't come out as predicted. I guess in this case the tests will be considered to be faulty, as there are literally no theories (that are not considered crackpot) that give different results different from GR in the strong field regime. So the tests by Gravity Probe B will not make any difference, though it probably will give GR theorists something more to brag about.
There is a big misconception about MOND, that it is a theory. It is not, it is a law that works very well at the Galactic Level and somewhat at the cluster level. MOND fits all galactic level data to the limit of their expected accuracy. This it does so with a single universal constant. But nobody knows why it works so well.
As such it is very obvious there is something behind MOND. GR cannot explain MOND without fine tuning DM in such a way to give rise to MOND. But since MOND uses only Baryonic matter, it leaves DM with no degrees of freedom, which is not possible, so DM must not exist at the Galactic level.
At Cluster level situation is different MOND does not match up with the missing mass. Which means either there is Dark Matter at the Cluster level or MOND itself is a reasonable approximation of the correct theory of gravity only in the galactic limit. Beyond the galactic level it ceases to be a good approximation.
If there is dark matter at the cluster level then there must be a reason why it does not exhibit itself at galactic levels. This would meant that the dark matter is hot and moving at a high velocity, which allows it to form stable structure only at the cluster scales.
The interesting thing about the universal constant (a0) of MOND, is that if a particle is accelerated by a0 for the whole life of universe then we will get the speed of light. This would seem to provide a hint that a0 is due to the curvature of the universe.
This actually solves a problem in GR. If GR is absolutely correct then the curvature of the universe cannot be determined, which is also called the flatness problem. This problem is currently avoided by assuming that there was an inflationary era when the universe expanded so much that we only see a very small part of the universe which is flat. So that GR equations are correct. But if that is not true and the universe is not really that big then GR will break down because of no fault of itself, but simply because of the curvature of the universe.
So in my opinion GR is correct but the curvature modifies GR in such a way that we observe MOND.
The thing is that this effect has been tested at strong gravity. There is no dispute that GR is not correct in the strong gravity limit. The strength of GR is only disputed at weak gravity, or near Planck's length. It is a good verification of GR, but I don't think anybody thought that it will not be vindicated.
We need a probe to test GR at L1 point if the gravity there is significantly weaker than a0 to distinguish between MOND and DM. This IMHO is the most important test. If it is not possible to test MOND at L1 point, because the MONDian bubble is too small then there is no hope for a test within the next decade. Because that is how much time a very modern satellite will take to reach beyond the solar system where the gravity is significantly weaker than a0.
When you do the downloading, the server copies the bits and sends it over to the internet. When it has arrived on your system then you are simply saving it into a file. If you went into the ridiculous definition of ram copies, then you could not even play your Media on a computer. Those are just incidental copies.
So rule (1) does not apply on the downloader. Yes, RIAA could still make it stick, if they found a judge who doesn't know computers (the vast majority out there and so a near certainty).
I don't think money is a big part of this problem. Bigger problems are independence and creative urge. Some people cannot depend on their spouse for the rest of their lives for support. That is a very difficult decision for any independent person. It also requires perfect trust in your partner. The second big problem is that if a person has worked for some time, they miss the interaction with their peers. Living at home and interacting with people around you, that don't have similar interest as you is not that interesting. It makes people bored to death.
The solution really is Telecommuting. That is the only way we will see better child support and lower divorce rates.
Anybody who goes into double income just for the money, is being stupid. Double income does not increase standard of life. It does increase the chance that you will fall out of love, and that there will be a divorce and children will suffer in the. Even when the worst scenario does not happen children still get neglected, which is not good for them.
MOND predicts the break down of GR at galaxy scales. If GR does not work at the galactic scale then it is meaningless apply it at larger scales. DM may still survive, because MOND needs it at the scale of cluster of galaxies, but that doesn't mean that we will need Dark Energy. It may be that as Gravity becomes stronger at lower accelerations, it may become repulsive at cosmic scales. This is a preliminary result of Conformal Gravity. All other forces are explained quantified Conformal Field Theories, and it makes it highly probable that gravity is also explained by another Conformal Field theory.
Step 6. Determine how much mass must be in the galaxy in order to provide the necessary centripetal acceleration to create the observed rotational speed using MOND, instead of GR.
Step 7. Compare answers from Step 4 and Step 6.
Step 8. Smack yourself in the head when you realize that there is no mass discrepancy. Then realize that GR is providing wrong answers to the questions posed by the Galaxies.
MOND is ignored by most of the scientific community although it has been giving good results since 25+ years. It has made testable predictions and all have been proved correct. There has been no failures reported so far, including Bullet Cluster, which poses bigger problems for Dark Matter (ie requiring a new interaction between DM) than MOND.
It is not just a equation. It is a theory, which means that it contains a lot more features than a single equation. The equation is actually derived from the theory. The theory ie GR is very simple conceptually, that the speed of light is constant and mass curves the space it exists in. Everything follows from there. To change it will be very difficult. Now GR has 10 parameters of symmetry, we could go to higher symmetry eg 15, which is Conformal Symmetry and is observed for the other 3 forces. This will cause different equations of motion. Also Quantization will need to be done just like the other three forces. So what follows is a very complicated theory, which although in essence is very simply defined. We are probing this theory from multiple angles at the present time. Loop Quantum Gravity or LQG is doing it from the bottom, and Conformal Gravity is doing it from the large scale to small. They will meet sometime ;-). I am now of the opinion that the bottom up approach may have a higher chance of succeeding. Lookup Conformally Deformed Special Relativity or CDSR, which is an outgrowth of LQG.
Actually MOND makes it more easy for Dark Galaxies made up of hot and massive neutrinos to exist, because it makes gravity stronger. So yes, entire galaxies of hot and massive neutrinos are possible, and probably are present in most Clusters of galaxies. MOND shows that there is some matter missing from these Clusters. So the presence of Dark Matter is not fatal to MOND. The presence of Cold Dark Matter may be problematic, but still not fatal. The only thing that will be fatal to MOND will be if we find a body of mass that has more observable mass than it predicts.
GR does not work at Galactic Levels, so there is no question of it working at the Cosmic levels.
r g%3Aastro-ph%2F0610298 (A New Force in the Dark Sector?)r g%3Aastro-ph%2F0609125 (Fits the Bullet Cluster with TeVeS, the MOND relativistic theory)
The real problem is MOND. If it did not exist then Dark Matter would be free to exist wherever it wanted. But with MOND the picture becomes more complex, now DM must fit MOND. It is quite easily provable that DM cannot fit MOND, just apply it to small cluster of stars at the outer edge of Milky Way which show Dark Matter. The problem is that for DM to fit Milky Way, it cannot be present in the Clusters. But some clusters do require DM. Now MOND fits both reasonably.
If you talk about Bullet Cluster, then don't because it proves that DM should have a new type of interaction because the DM itself is experiencing higher gravity than relativity predicts. Now this can be due to MOND. MOND can be fit to the Cluster by using hot and massive neutrinos. See the following papers.
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.o
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.o
The additional benefit is that MOND supplies the higher than gravity force required to fit the velocity of DM in Bullet Cluster.
I understand that Quantum Physics is a set of equations which don't make much sense outside the realm of its mathematics, but it does make testable predictions.
Now Dark Matter is a different beast. It is added to fit any observation. It does not allow you to make any prediction. It is simply a device to fit GR into observations. Normally this would not be a bad idea, except for the really unfortunate case that MOND does fit all galactic observations without needing any Dark Matter. This is really unfortunate for Dark Matter because now it must fit MOND. The Dark Matter theorists when faced with this predicament simply ignore it pointing out its ugly face.
The really funny thing is that Dark Matter is supposed to be Cold. This should allow it to clump in large objects. Then what happens when this big object would collide with normal matter. It cannot interact electromagnetically, which is how all our collisions happen. What will happen?
The problem is that the Dark Matter seems to be moving at a much faster rate than expected. So now the Relativists are posing a new interaction that only works between Dark Matter ;-). They don't concede defeat easily, those Relativists.
The colliding galaxies you are talking about is not really colliding galaxies, but colliding clusters of galaxies, this one is called the Bullet Cluster. A cluster of galaxies is a huge body of matter, which is not adequately explained by the only other competing postulate MOND. MOND requires some dark matter to exist for it to fit the cluster of galaxies, but it can do so currently by using hot and massive neutrinos, instead of unobserved weird dark matter particles.
But the real problem with using dark matter in either GR or MOND is that the dark matter should have a much smaller velocity than what is being observed, in the Bullet Cluster. Now the Dark Matter proponents are positing a new interaction that works only between dark matter. While MOND people are just scratching their heads not able to fit that aspect of the problem. You see that GR people have grown so accustomed to fudging factors by postulating new objects that they don't even stop to think that they are going in circles, just like the scientists in the age of Plato.
I do believe that there is light at the end of tunnel. Loop Quantum Gravity people are going in somewhat the right direction. The only failing being that they are trying to fit Relativity, which I don't believe is the correct one, it only arises in a small section of the universe where the curvature of the universe is not observable, eg our solar system. An offshoot of LQG is Doubly Special Relativity (ie there are two universal constants the Planck's constant and speed of light), which tries to include Planck's constant in Special Relativity, by deforming it. Now another guy has made a new theory by using Conformal symmetry to deform Special Relativity, this effort leads to CDSR which gives a natural explanation for the MOND phenomenology.
The interest in Conformal field theory of gravity is because the other three forces are a form of Quantized Conformal Field Theories. I am hoping that CDSR will make a connection with Conformal Gravity, at some level, and provide some insight into getting a sane Quantum Gravity Theory, which will incorporate both Quantum theory and Relativity.
I don't understand how Tully Fisher relation comes about in GR+DM. It can come from MOND on the other hand. I don't understand why the article was totally silent on Dark Matter. Tully Fisher relation is very specific to Spiral galaxies, how did they apply it to other galaxy types without using any underlying theory. What was that theory, if it was not MOND or GR+DM.