if open source could employ the bandwidth and computing powers of the masses, would it change the david vs goliath theme?
its more in the spirit of oss anyway.
all by itself it mights not seem like much but if that selfsustainable minilan were deployed in a school, or an other education center, or a hospital, than it would make a significant difference.
He is a reporter and he went into a conflict zone knowing the risks involved (or so i hope).
and as a reporter in a conflict zone he probably wanted to spread information around, even if it meant for him to risk his life. Is wikipedia really acting in his interest by betraying the very idea of uncensored information flow, a thing he knowingly risked he's life for, assuming that it even going to help hem in any way? debatable...
is an abstract ideal worth a mans life? Only the man himself should decide that! Is wikipedia assuming this authority on his behalf by making an exception? I do think so.
with that being said, the way mass media handles/creates terrorism situation is obscene to put it mildly. the actual "harm" would be done by the fox news and such, because wikipedia istn even supposed to be a news agency?
i can not help to notice that this MPs "troubles" with the executive will/could provide the rainbow press with another much valued connection piratespedophiles...
start pirating stuff?
we can do something by ignoring bullshit laws and encouraging other to do the same and providing insight into technology and perhapf tor exit nodes?
you didn't expect that this problem could be fixed by voting once every couple of years did you?
if there even is something like a worse and less bad part of this horrible story, anyway the worst part is in my opinion the fact that under the german law it is illigal for citizens to disclose those blocklists or parts of that blocklist. You are apparently expected to trust them not to try anything funny if you believe that! (the gem of that story being the fact that a second instance court ruled it were even illigal to link to site which could in turn link to other "bad" sites. There was a story about wikileaks story to that account not too long ago (the law wasnt even being passed yet, the fuss was about the australian blocklist!)
now imagine/wait for this:
"blogger x" guys i found out that that brand new blocking list of our also includes political and other stuff, get a load of this!
"BKA" (kicks down door) you are not allowed to disclose stuff like that citizen! we'll confiscate your hardware as a start, cya in court!
IMO there are in fact valid reasons to actually abolish copy/patentright beyond "everthing will work out somehow" and "middle ground" argument.
For brevity's sake i would like try to look at technical patents only but i think similar arguments can be made in regards to artistic copyright.
Lets compare the scenarios patenting/no patenting from the point of view of the person who is supposed to be protected by this whole thingie the scientist who invented cure for something or the software engineer who wrote a killer application:
CASE one, today's patenting solution: cure for cancer or THE SPAMKILLFILE algorithm or whatever has been invented or written by a person or a group of people. The moment it gets patented (actually before that but since the general public is none the wiser until stuff gets patented it doesnt matter much) the company those techs and scientist were working for are the ones in total control of that piece of intellectual work (including the power to sit on it and dont let anyone using it for some reason or other) and what is important here ist precisely that: patents do not empower those techheads but rather the firm who they work for. Sure, the do get paid for that piece of work, maybe they even get a raise, but then maybe not. If not, they couldn't just take that expertise of theirs and go implement the "brilliant ideaTM" elsewhere, the company owns that innovatiove piece of knowledge for effectively forever. Even the brilliant scientist who is one among the very few people in the world who actually has the most profound understanding of that new technology or the guru who knows the KILLERAPP code like no one else have no say whatsoever on how that piece of work will be put to good use (or even at all) Instead we have the firm using that piece of knowledge for one purpose and from one angle only, namely profit maximisation. I know we(you) have come to accept the fact that all the good things are a mere byproduct of that profit maximisation paradigm and subordinate to it when push comes to shove. (Indeed this could be one of the reasons people are fed up with IP concept. It helps create certain.. inefficiencies like letting poor people who cant afford the new drugs die and such)
Anyway this wasn't about failings of capitalism in general so lets look at the hypothetical CASE two, no patent right whatsoever:
The same cure for cancer or killerapp is being developed and put into public domain the moment the product hits the shelves. (I am aware of the obvious question: why would firms even invest money into R&D if they don't get to keep total control over the resulting innovation? i'll come to that in a moment, please bear with me) Now for the tech in question the situation is obviously better than ever: her expertise is still worth as much as ever, in fact the more popular the application gets the more is his expertise worth. Sure there are thousands specialists in the same filed who are capable of understanding/implementing the innovation in question but the gals who wrote it are still the ones who know that shit better than anyone else, that is until the technology in all its possible and different implementations is commonplace (which would happen fairly quick with something truly innovative, as one would hope it should). Now the company better treats their scientists and coders right! Lest they pack up and go implement the idea elsewhere.... Which is kinda apropriate because those where the guys who actually did all the (intellectual) work and such. Yeah the coders still need an admin to mind the network and their servers and such and yes the scientist still need someone to do the stuff that needs to be done and whatsnot but one still could argue that a software developing firm ist primary about writing software and pharmaceutical firm is about developing drugs? The point i am obviously struggling with here is that patenting is not empowering those people who actually provide the service in question, quite the opposite perhaps? On the oth
Slashdot Mirror
if open source could employ the bandwidth and computing powers of the masses, would it change the david vs goliath theme?
its more in the spirit of oss anyway.
all by itself it mights not seem like much but if that selfsustainable minilan were deployed in a school, or an other education center, or a hospital, than it would make a significant difference.
He is a reporter and he went into a conflict zone knowing the risks involved (or so i hope).
and as a reporter in a conflict zone he probably wanted to spread information around, even if it meant for him to risk his life. Is wikipedia really acting in his interest by betraying the very idea of uncensored information flow, a thing he knowingly risked he's life for, assuming that it even going to help hem in any way? debatable...
is an abstract ideal worth a mans life? Only the man himself should decide that! Is wikipedia assuming this authority on his behalf by making an exception? I do think so.
with that being said, the way mass media handles/creates terrorism situation is obscene to put it mildly. the actual "harm" would be done by the fox news and such, because wikipedia istn even supposed to be a news agency?
and i alway thought the theorem meant that you need some sort of observable reality that to build your consistent systen on.
i can not help to notice that this MPs "troubles" with the executive will/could provide the rainbow press with another much valued connection piratespedophiles...
start pirating stuff? we can do something by ignoring bullshit laws and encouraging other to do the same and providing insight into technology and perhapf tor exit nodes? you didn't expect that this problem could be fixed by voting once every couple of years did you?
if there even is something like a worse and less bad part of this horrible story, anyway the worst part is in my opinion the fact that under the german law it is illigal for citizens to disclose those blocklists or parts of that blocklist.
You are apparently expected to trust them not to try anything funny if you believe that! (the gem of that story being the fact that a second instance court ruled it were even illigal to link to site which could in turn link to other "bad" sites.
There was a story about wikileaks story to that account not too long ago (the law wasnt even being passed yet, the fuss was about the australian blocklist!) now imagine/wait for this:
"blogger x" guys i found out that that brand new blocking list of our also includes political and other stuff, get a load of this!
"BKA" (kicks down door) you are not allowed to disclose stuff like that citizen! we'll confiscate your hardware as a start, cya in court!
IMO there are in fact valid reasons to actually abolish copy/patentright beyond "everthing will work out somehow" and "middle ground" argument.
For brevity's sake i would like try to look at technical patents only but i think similar arguments can be made in regards to artistic copyright.
Lets compare the scenarios patenting/no patenting from the point of view of the person who is supposed to be protected by this whole thingie the scientist who invented cure for something or the software engineer who wrote a killer application:
CASE one, today's patenting solution: cure for cancer or THE SPAMKILLFILE algorithm or whatever has been invented or written by a person or a group of people. The moment it gets patented (actually before that but since the general public is none the wiser until stuff gets patented it doesnt matter much) the company those techs and scientist were working for are the ones in total control of that piece of intellectual work (including the power to sit on it and dont let anyone using it for some reason or other) and what is important here ist precisely that: patents do not empower those techheads but rather the firm who they work for. Sure, the do get paid for that piece of work, maybe they even get a raise, but then maybe not. If not, they couldn't just take that expertise of theirs and go implement the "brilliant ideaTM" elsewhere, the company owns that innovatiove piece of knowledge for effectively forever. Even the brilliant scientist who is one among the very few people in the world who actually has the most profound understanding of that new technology or the guru who knows the KILLERAPP code like no one else have no say whatsoever on how that piece of work will be put to good use (or even at all) Instead we have the firm using that piece of knowledge for one purpose and from one angle only, namely profit maximisation. I know we(you) have come to accept the fact that all the good things are a mere byproduct of that profit maximisation paradigm and subordinate to it when push comes to shove. (Indeed this could be one of the reasons people are fed up with IP concept. It helps create certain.. inefficiencies like letting poor people who cant afford the new drugs die and such)
Anyway this wasn't about failings of capitalism in general so lets look at the hypothetical
CASE two, no patent right whatsoever:
The same cure for cancer or killerapp is being developed and put into public domain the moment the product hits the shelves.
(I am aware of the obvious question: why would firms even invest money into R&D if they don't get to keep total control over the resulting innovation? i'll come to that in a moment, please bear with me)
Now for the tech in question the situation is obviously better than ever: her expertise is still worth as much as ever, in fact the more popular the application gets the more is his expertise worth. Sure there are thousands specialists in the same filed who are capable of understanding/implementing the innovation in question but the gals who wrote it are still the ones who know that shit better than anyone else, that is until the technology in all its possible and different implementations is commonplace (which would happen fairly quick with something truly innovative, as one would hope it should).
Now the company better treats their scientists and coders right! Lest they pack up and go implement the idea elsewhere.... Which is kinda apropriate because those where the guys who actually did all the (intellectual) work and such. Yeah the coders still need an admin to mind the network and their servers and such and yes the scientist still need someone to do the stuff that needs to be done and whatsnot but one still could argue that a software developing firm ist primary about writing software and pharmaceutical firm is about developing drugs?
The point i am obviously struggling with here is that patenting is not empowering those people who actually provide the service in question, quite the opposite perhaps?
On the oth
i respectfully disagree, this aspect merely changes what the useful definition of "standarts" is in respect to that os...
heh... yeah im being immature i know