To quote TJ as a good source of info on economics is like quoting Mel Brooks for history. He died penniless. At one point he tried to raffle off his house to pay his debts. Couldn't raise enough money. He also had serious problems with the national budget (before we had a standing army and before the SSA, and before NASA) This guy had his head in his proverbial arse when it came to understanding business and economies. Rather than assail his credibility directly, I offer this:
and it may be observed that the nations
which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices
Of the countries in the 18th century that are as "fruitful" as England was, I wonder why it was England who managed to hold on to an empire (a measure of success in the 18th century) that spanned the world until as recently as 1997?
I am wondering right now, what country on the planet is as "fruitful" as the United States? Let's take for example, China. There is no such thing as intellectual property in China. Yet they managed to gain about 30 yrs in their missle program in the past 10. Is this due to the fact that their freedom of intellectual property (as long as that property is deemed fit by the party), or that MIRV technology was given to them so they could launch satellites?
How about the Soviet Union of the 60s, 70s, and 80s? While it is true that they could maintain with the US up to a point, has the general populace of Russia benefitted from the old CCCP space program? Contrast with America for homework.
Think about it in terms of "brain drain"--the demographic principle that states intelligent people migrate from places where there are few opportunities. They migrate to places where there is opportunity. What is this opportunity? The opportunity to succeed--defined however you like. Most people define this as financial security--especially those from poorer portions of the world.
Onto the heart of the argument:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all
others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively
possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one,
and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it
Suppose you have an idea. Just that, an idea. Let's say that your idea is to build a wonder widget. To build this, you would need real property (in the accounting sense) to implement your idea. Further, and most often the case, you would need some help. These two things can be very expensive. Then there is R&D and other intangible expenses. You go to the SBA and get a loan. You pitch the widget, they love it, and loan you $10M seed.
You proceed to build/rent/lease/buy the real property necessary to produce your widgets. You hire technically trained artisans to build your widgets. You get some bright lights to run the R&D, accountants, managers, etc. Without producing one single widget, you have spent a good bit of your $10M. You purchase raw materials.
Acme, Inc. comes along and manages to get a hold of some plans for widgets. With their infrastructure, they gain quickly and soon surpass your production of widgets. Their crack team of salespeople start distributing widgets globally. You, on the otherhand, have no distribution model, have little capital, are in debt, and will probably fail, go bankrupt, and pay debts for the rest of your life.
The sole purpose of a patent is to present a barrier to entry into a market. You do not own your idea, but rather have an exclusive lease. Admittedly, the time given for the lease is not as optimal as it could be. However, most people who start companies need this barrier to get moving. Without this barrier, it would be a guarantee that there would be only one company in the world.
It is true that the "receiver cannot disposses himself of [the idea]," but the patent system is there to prevent that receiver, be it Joe Schmoe or Ultra-Mega Corp, from profitting from the use until you have had a shot at profitting at it. You, as a relatively poor entity, cannot compete with a super corporation. That supercorporation could just take out your livelihood.
I believe that these are valid points and stand against your everyday biggoted, incestuous pervert (not to impeach your source's credibility) who was an exceedingly poor business man and died in debt (that part was to impeach his credibility).
The lesson you should walk away with is that patents prevent monopolies in an overwhelming majority of cases. For every bad patent, there are 100 good. This isn't to say that there are no bad patents, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
LaTeX still does not solve three basic problems with document formatting. After working with JNI to implement printing in Java (Java printing is absolutely horrid), actual font sizes vary from printer to printer. Courier 10 is different sizes on different printers--can you imagine the headache? Actual points on a page vary from printer to printer (albeit slightly) across platforms. Believe it or not, a dual boot 95/NT machine will render a document differently on the same printer with the JNI class we implemented--depending on the OS being used. The final problem is cross-platform implementation of these issues.
To suggest LaTeX or other page layout that is not as complete as postscript or pdf, is to trade the language, not the problem.
The popularity of HTML is that it is easy to learn the basics and rich enough to do very complicated formatting. Eventual HTML standards may approach TeX 3.14159 with things like MathML, Style-sheets, etc. However, there will always be vendor specific problems. For those who look at my web page, I made it in 30 minutes with vi. I do have a very good working knowledge of HTML.
XML may be a way to go. As an XML programmer, I enjoy the fact that I have lex and yacc built in with XML, though I don't like the bloat. The project UIML makes the point I am trying to make. The interface should be easy to use such that any graphic designer can use it and those of use who code and hate doing UI can go about coding something real. Keep it simple yet rich. Avoid scripting et al.
Anyway, back to work on what my web page describes.
The problem is this.. what is legit? If it were so easy to say s/he is legit, there would be no reason to have, say, a judicial system. The judicial system is there to judge the credibility and context of evidence. If, for instance, you and a pal enjoyed playing unreal. After taking a serious whipping, he emailed you to say "Ha! Ha! You suck!" and you replied "I'll kill you tomoroow!", things can get taken out of context.
If your pal shows up with a kitchen knife in his throat the next day and Carnivore was sniffing your email, you may become suspect numero uno.
So you're innocent, but you just happen to be out taking a spin by yourself during the time of the murder. Hard to defend alibi. You could conceivably become indicted. That costs money. Whether or not you are innocent, it costs lot's of money (lost wages, bail, lawyers, etc.) and the information still has to be judged in your favor for you to be cleared since it is pretty obvious you made a death threat as revenge for some strife. If the pocketbook argument doesn't work, think about your personal credibility. If that doesn't work, remember bail is not usually given in murder one cases in my parts. Perhaps a suspension of your civil liberties may convince you.
You must remember that it is the context not the content that determines legitimacy. Carnivore can capture tons of content. However, it is impossible to ensure that it captures enough content to discern context. In some cases, like the one I mentioned above, it is impossible for it to determine any context. The English language (as a matter of fact, all sufficiently complex languages) is open for interpretation and your interpretation of a harmless note is not always the easiest to believe.
Was it Ben Franklin who said something to the effect: "Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."?
The fourth and fifth amendments are not there to harbor criminals. They are there to protect the wrongly accused. And just because you claim legitimacy does not mean that you will never be accused. Go ahead and let them sniff? Given enough time and wide enough scope, the FBI could have brought charges against Mother Teresa.
Rather than a court order allow a switch to be thrown, I would prefer a larger price in time and money to install such a system to deter wanton use of this if it can even do what it claims. Remember, it's not how private something really is in the US, but how much privacy you expect that determines what kind of warrant is needed.
correct.. think about it like this, there are two types of successful ad campaigns--those that inspire and those that are absolutely horrible. the purpose of ads is less to sell you a product and more to make you remember a name. if you doubt me, look at Mentos. those ads are _so_ bad, but the campaign is successful enough to still be alive after half a dozen years.
every hashing function [h()] is a many to one relationship (domain is larger than the range). Given a set of objects S1 , S2 , S3... such that h(S1) = h(S2) = h(S3) =...., hashing becomes a list search. The fastest list search is log (n). Therefore, hashing is still O(log n) but is o(C). Don't get O and o confused.
Let's look at the real reason for the digital divide. People are poor and destitute. Why? is there a shortage of good paying jobs? Not according the current Prez. In fact, we are importing in record numbers skilled labor. Therefore, the poor must be unskilled. By unskilled I mean cannot use Excel. Cannot use a keyboard. Cannot read. Cannot manage time well. In short, they do not have the rudimentary skills necessary to point-and-click, let along do anything else.
"Here you are Mr. Jon Q. Poor, here's your Maserati have fun!"
"Cool, I will be the envy of the neighborhood. How do you turn it on?"
"With a key."
"Where is the key?"
"Not my problem, I just distribute Maseratis. BTW, I should warn you it gets 8mpg on the highway, so expect an increase in your energy consumption. It also breaks down frequently for no apparent reason and this is to be expected. You know, the general problems you get with owning a late-model Italian luxury sports car. Oh, and, it's probably not street-legal in 34 states, so you can't drive there."
"What should I do about it?"
"Like I said, I just deliver them."
It is elitest to think capitalization is the only problem at work here. It takes skills to utilize the web. It takes time to learn (and teach) these skills. It's as ridiculous to assume that giving a computer to someone will get them on the web as giving someone a book and expecting them to learn to read by themselves. Waste of time, energy, and capital without the resources to teach rudimentary things (you know, like reading) before you get to the great error message of "This Computer Has Performed an Illegal Operation..." one-time on the way! My mother (neither poor nor uneducated) received this error and was quite convinced the police were on their way.
politics and rhetoric are still (after about 2500 years) still practiced. In fact, it was an orginial ars libertas (where we get the term liberal arts, literally meaning arts of a free man).
It is interesting to point out that one of the original ars is astrology. That, unfortunately, still exists. Philosophy, oration, and I forget the other two, still exist today. Rhetoric is simply a form of communication. Political rhetoric is little more than pandering (always has been, always will be.. a point Cicero could have learned from Julius Caesar). Not until JFK appeared on television was it popularized for political campaigns (15 or so years after it gained popularity). Not until FDR was the radio utilized extensively for political purposes (at least 15 years after it gained popularity).
The more I read about corps on slashdot, the more I shudder. I am sorry the proletariot (sp?) seem to have most posters oppressed. If you are waiting for someone to wrest power from the corps, are you in for a rude awakening.
Let's start with a simple axiom: the conservation of power (political, monetary, etc). There is only a finite amount of power that can exist. To divide power evenly is a recipe for disaster (cf Mythical Man Month--someone has to have more power to make higher level decisions, otherwise crap output). So, there must exist a pecking order. If you don't like it, take on the alpha-critter. Feel you don't have enough power to take on the alpha-critter, don't start there. Amass power and climb the pecking order. Always remember: power corrupts (as you will be as you climb) and s/he who has the gold makes the rules. Don't like it, find a place that exists that does not follow it (good luck--don't know of one) and move there. Try to start one. Even the hippie communes of the sixties all but fell extinct. And those that still do exist seem to have different goals than those goals expressed here on slashdot (otherwise, we would hear about them.. duh)
So there will always be a need for politics to handle this pecking order. Someone will always have veto power over you. Your creativity must be stifled for the benefit of the many (again, cf Mythical Man Month (specifically the surgical team approach) -- hate to keep quoting this source, but other managerial texts do not seem to have the repore of this book on/.)
Set your video refresh rate to below 60Hz ( that's about 60 FPS ) and stare at it for about 6 hrs. Sleep it off. Then set your video refresh rate to above 80Hz ( that's about 80 FPS ) and stare at it for 6 hrs. Compare strain on the eye. (for those that do not know what is going to happen, I present this warning... must have a monitor that can support such high refresh rates.)
Perceptually, there is no difference when looking. The difference comes with strain on the eye. Eye has to work harder to fool the brain at lower refresh rates. This causes all kinds of muscle strain.
Of course, when graphics cards can put up one frame per CRT scan, that is the utmost limit and beyond which there can be no perceieved difference simply because the monitor is the limiting factor.
Just because your eyes cannot discern between events.05 secs apart (in the best case) does not mean that there is no perceived difference. For instance, stand outside at night, stare into a camera flash (this takes less than.1 secs if you are close enough to the camera) and then try to see anything for 1 hr (assuming you didn't blow your rods and cones). Admittedly, this is the most extreme of the situation but it illustrates the point that it isn't the fact that the eye can only "reset" the retina 10-20 times a second, but that the mechanics of the eye that become important for a pleasureable experience.
There is ridiculous hoopla over child-committed violence (a child is much safer in school, church, home, on the playground than in a car driven by an adult).
Someone needs to be left holding the bag or newspapers don't sell, lawyers don't get paid, politicians don't get elected, etc.
Blaming parenting or parental methods can only be successfully done by children of same after therapy (I forgot to mention therapists above).
The parenting problem this is supposed to band-aid: children using their disposable income unwisely. If a child of 16 can purchase these and other games, he can also:
Help with car insurance (if old enough)
Help with car payment (if old enough)
Save for college
etc...
So rather than use disposable income to teach what monetary responsibility is, a hands-off neoclassical idea of 12-yr-olds being miniature adults capable of making a sound monetary decision about things that cost more than $10 (admission to a movie plus snacks--maybe), parents this is aimed at are happy to rely on MegaCorp to raise their child for them.
I have exactly the same views about drinking ages. Can't drink it if you can't pay for it. Once a child can pay rent, pay car payment, insurance, college, food, etc.., then that child can do what s/he will with the rest of their money without approval.
These things may seem draconian. However, I believe a child's spending money should be proportional to the responsibility the child takes on with fiduciary decisions (ie, how much of his own life s/he is paying for). Otherwise, serious (and often reprehensible) ramifications will arise.
Anyone who thinks a teenager should keep all the money they make is teaching the teenager a bad lesson: the wantful things in life are a higher priority than the needful things in life.
Interesting interpretation of Locke.. He (a fervent capitalist) believed (as far as I have read) that you (and only you) have the natural right to profit from your work/service (performing/editting/producing/promoting/distribut ing music being just this).
Prehaps you are referring to the works of Marx? I believe he espoused that there is no natural right for profit from ownership. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Marx profess that work for profit is wrong? I can see where you would get Marx and Locke confused, what with their completely inconsistent ideologies and all.
Perhaps you do not think that information is the product of work and therefore can be owned? What about those that build houses. Is one capable of owning a house (the product of work and information and raw materials)? Is the house not worth more than the raw materials and work involved? If the house is not worth more than the raw materials and work, then why is there variable "property value?" This is an intangible that can be owned. The intangible revolves around aestheitcs and neighborhood, both of which are being purchased with a house. Otherwise, why would poorer people live in horrible sections of cities with less desireable homes? So it is possible to own an intangible and profit from it--whether it be safer neighborhoods or cash in the wallet.
Oh yes Sybase has these.. Believe me, they work differently and the migration turns out to be a complete rewrite. Stick within the same DBMS, the migration is easier. Since Sybase for Linux is free to develop, it is possible to test it before purchasing to see if it will handle the data.
Sybase takes control of the HDC so it is not a filesystem file. Further, only a dunderhead would want 1 sement that is 30G in size. Sybase is smart and I have had no problems developing on Sybase for Linux and have been using it to play with for several years--never put too much strain on it.. most I have put in at one time was 6 G. Seem to handle it, though.
Lynching, though technically illegal, was considered popular and unpunishable in the South for decades.
Hell, why were lynchings ever investigated by the FBI? My GOD, people thought they were an A-OK way to settle perceived greivences.
Mob mentality has gotten lot's of people in trouble.. like Germany (who recently paid out billions to those who were bonded in the 30s and 40s). It was popular!
And if you claim that these analogies are not relevant.. just remember that it was popularity that brought about these atrocities. And popularity as an argument must be weighed in terms of these atrocities.
Oh, but don't you see? All the GL screensavers will run a little bit smoother on the NT servers with the 800MHz proc even when 25 people are logged on using Citrix (you laugh but I have seen a Citrix server with the GL screensavers activated!) jars
Agreed. The only purpose of computers in the classroom would be to teach how to use computers which require a knowledgeable instructor. As it stands, computers are being used as teachers--a panacea to the overcrowding of classrooms. Computers cannot tailor course work and cannot help the advancement of students. In the end, the software reaches so few students (since the one way to teach philosophy is at the heart of computer assisted learning--repetition).
I would go so far as to say CBTs do not work as well as instructors for most people. As a software engineer, the only problems in the real world solved by computers are:
they can add numbers very quickly in a complicated way unerringly
they can regurgitate information very quickly. Whether or not it is useful information depends on how well the user can interact with the computer
Starcraft None of these are qualifications for human teachers and computers have about the same place in classrooms as calculators.
We are falling from Eden. And falling fast. Unfortunately, capitalizing (read feeding) developers of Open Media is the biggest problem faced by the Open movement. Just as there are HAM and CB radios (contrast with AM/FM stations), there may soon (and will be in the distant future if things keep up) be a sharp distinction between hobbyist/enthusiast and paid developer/disburser
As noted before on/., lots of start-ups are going bust. The reason: advertising does not generate the revenue necessary for smaller media outlets to maintain the power bill (let alone the salaries, etc.). It is only a matter of time before even the great Amazon.com will be forced to not hemorrage money.
So, suppliers of non-corporate information will be forced to do 1 of two things:
Get a real job to fund their media and do that in their spare time (a hot commodity these days) with spare money they make and/or donations (which will inevitable lead to editting in some form)
Give up on the disbersal of information entirely Case 1 presents the fact that they will not be able to devote the time they feel necessary to provide a good datum of information. Case 2 means no datum whatsoever. Either way, we--as consumers of this new media--are falling from Eden.
The consumers of the media will undoubtedly be forced to consume their media from established media sources. Those that point to Napster as a counterexample, please sit and think a moment. Napster was a creation (some would say the forbidden fruit) of our Eden. The individuals who maintain and develop for Napster need to eat. Since they need to eat, they need money. Without the ability to make enough money and the frigid conditions arising around capitalizing an internet co (which will only get colder), they will eventually turn to some other, more gainful employment. This leaves those people who work in their spare time (case 1 above) to maintain the work (GNUtella and the like).
While open projects can be better than closed, they often (most of the time) require some mysticism to get installed properly, meaning only those with the knowledge are the ones to gain from the knowledge. The time and energy needed to take the mysticism out is (in my opinion, since I program systems and not applications) daunting. My applications interface is obtuse to those not familiar with how the systems work. The system works, but it requires knowledge of the system to use properly.
These circumstances will not halt the development of open media, just slow it to a crawl (about the speed of government projects) as opposed to a funded 40-hr a week job that pays enough to eat and earns enough no to file bankruptcy.
As for xactional software fees, this boils down to subscription services in most cases (since it is easier to handle from the bookkeeping end). Since the climate of capitalization is cooling (and will be in the ice age--comparatively--in another year or two), these will need to be bootstrapped by people operating under case 1 above.
Of course, those companies who do get enough traffic to be supported by ad revenue alone will always conquer those that have xational fees unless, like HBO did in the eighties, provide content far superior than the "free" sites. To provide far superior content requires a lot more effort. More effort + less time from case 1 = less chance of success. I offer into evidence the enormous list of unsupported alpha and beta software for Linux x86. Of course, I said less chance of success and I am perfectly aware that the model does work the other way in special circumstances (ie some GNU projects). This is just one aspect of Open Media.
Look at news sites for another. Nothing outrageous has come along to frighten the giants: Ziff-Davis, AP, and UPI. Look at scientific publications. ACM has a wonderful service of xactional fees. However, this is still a body that existed before 1990 (when the first dial-ups to the internet appeared). Further, it is editted for content. The list continues. I have recently sought a good reference for the ARIES algorithm in all its glory. I managed to find a couple of papers in the midst of soliloquy.
The list continues: IRC and ICQ--distribution of the forbidden fruit of the internet (ie Not-Quite-Free data) will lead to more and more network admins blocking ports for fear of lawsuits like the one against Nike (this will be years in the future--say 3).
Bottom line, there is nothing more valuable than information these days. Those with information or tools to exploit information will be the wealthy ones. And for those who don't know the real golden rule: S/He who has the gold, makes the rules. (read paid-for lobbyists rule the world)
It is very unfortunate that this is happening. How to stop it? Can you stop it? Can you feed all those who believe information want to be free? I would love for the Eden to continue. Fight as you will, no one owns the Internet (just as no one owns the EM spectrum) but the gov'ts of the world will find a way to regulate, squash, and hamper for the best interest of those who innovate (for better or worse) for a living.
Okay, so we are 5-10 years away from understanding the nature part. In my opinion, we have not made any in-roads on the nurture part beyond what nature/God/whatever-you-believe gave to us instinctively. I mean, anyone every heard of the absolute and canonical way to parent a child?
Hype Hype Hype-hooray!
At best, we can make a prediction as accurate as a ninety day weather forecast. Let 'em go. Do their thing. Now, let them try to slap behavioral and physical characteristics of statistical significance to genes. (I mean, this child will be 6'2"--providing he doesn't go hiking in the Alps, get lost, get frostbite that turns to gangrene, and lose both legs).
What is the advantage of having such a massive earth-bound telescope (OWT)? I understand that the potential resolution is extremely sharp. However, WRT collecting photons that have journeyed through the atmosphere, the best of telescopes (even with adaptive optics) can only approach the diffraction limit of the telescope. Further work in using phase diversity images can get fairly close to the diffraction limit, but the problem is collecting enough photons to have an out-of-focus image (as well as a computer fast enough to generate restorations from the phase diversity images). In short, as a cost-benefit analysis, will the OWL telescope produce a big enough marginal return on resolution such that it is worth the effort and $$ to create and how will it handle the problems of atmospheric interference?
you are right. That is a great analogy. I go to the local store that advertises doobies on television, pick out my favorite brand, and.. wait, I can't do that since I am in the US.
go to google and look up warez, mp3, etc. Go d/l Napster. There is a big difference between having the cheek to advertise illegal activities and actually doing it in an underground environment.
That is the difference. I know it will never go away, I just want it off the front page. Once off the front page, it may be possible to get the lawyers disinterested. That is my ultimate goal.
Your scenario is worse than what I was thinking. To CYA, ISPs may reduce to the lowest common denominator thereby grabbing the worst of the worst of global legislations. Or worse, the US slapping some of these packet filters customs-style on the trunks at either side of the country. So your packet will have to go through customs to get to points of origin outside of your country. Generally, I use US sites (with the occaisional funet ftp). For all intents and purposes, the US does have the power to regulate my internet experience--though not the entire internet. I am being selfish in my post above. I would rather my internet experience continue status quo rather than gamble on idiots in congress, blowhards from 1600 Pennsylvania ave., and disinterested justices.
My father ran an 31337 board in the early to mid eighties on a wonderful Commode (sic) 64 and 128. I thought that was well and good and the thought never occurred to me to police my actions online since I grew up in an 31337 household. We always had the latest updates to Fast Hack 'em (Let's see how many people know what I'm talking about), monster Warez lists, 20 Meg hard drive, and close to 1500 flippies (homemade with a hole puncher). I didn't see the full ramifications of what I had been doing for close to 20 years until recently. I am trying to stay neutral and understand the vacuum that existed those many years ago is vanishing and the sound of lawyers rushing in is deafening.
Let's take the Warez, pr0n, mp3s, and everything else back underground. Make it extremely difficult to traffic in illicit materials. The only way to do that is for the 31337 of the world to go back to the way it was done before. Go into hiding. Don't advertise. Restrict the 31337 areas. Just as dope smuggling rings that get large are busted, don't let your 31337 circle get too large.
Drug dealers (outside of inner cities) generally don't hang out a shingle. Neither should Warez sites. I don't think the problem can be solved and by forcing a showdown, everyone loses. Instead of priding yourself on your collection of broken links, pride yourself on how many links work. To do that, you have to keep a very low profile. You want votes on t50? Why? The mob figured out a long time ago that you can thrive by keeping a very low profile (unless they have purchased the local gov't). I don't think any w4r3z d00d own any government officals.
Please, let's stop flaunting these (arguably) minor tortes before those with the power (and that is definitely not those who are 31337) make those tortes felonies--like what our good friend Mitnik did for us.
All this amounts to is ridiculousness similar to laws against suicide. Is it possible to punish someone who wants to die-- I mean "Gosh my life sucks and now there are more reasons why it sucks?"
Now, having said that, I will don my asbestos suit. With each passing post of this nature, the doomsayers and rebels and freedom fighters jump out with "How can anyone POSSIBLY regulate ME?" It can be done and will be done. Court decisions are overturned. Laws are changed (that's why we in the US still have a Congress). And it is damn hard to lobby successfully for something that has obvious legal problems. Just as getting rid of scheduling of narcotics will solve the drug problem (trivial solution), making illicit material legal on the internet will cause the problem to go away. That won't happen. Come out of fantasy land. The honeymoon will be over iff we don't do something to police the problem from within. Only then can we get laws in our favor. We are not in a vacuum. Our actions have reprocusions. Take responsibility people!
After reading the article, I have no qualms with some of the "solutions" (read adhesive bandage) that mete out bandwidth by application. I have no problem with people policing their private networks. I have always believed that if we as an online community do not start policing our actions from within, someone else will do it for us--and none of us will like it. I mean, there is no inalienable right in the US to Internet (just as there is no right to a television, camcorder, computer, etc) (contrast with the ideas of the new President/King of Syria).
In short, so that everyone is minimally satisfied, the ridiculous concept of "Blue Laws" should be instituted. Some of the products mentioned in the article are a start in that direction. It only takes several idiots to commit some ridiculous crime that pisses off the wrong person then hide behind the first amendment to really screw up a good thing.
The Free Kevin movement is a good example. Whether or not he should have been freed, he managed to piss off the wrong people. Those that disclaimed "Free Kevin" were merely exercising their first amendment rights. However, like it or not, Mr. Mitnik's antics managed to make people aware the subterfuge possible by an interconnected world. This is what landed him his sentence. These antics, while (arguably) harmless (like the DDoS debacle earlier this year), affected pocketbooks--Da Benjis if you will.
Before I ramble too much more, let me state, for the record:
Napster does traffic in (currently) illegal material as well as legal material.
Squatter's rights as a means of enforcement will never be tolerated by the government.
If something illegal is currently occurring somewhere, it is only a matter of time before the government does something (either regulate by denying service or by taking a substantial take on the profits).
Therefore, if we would like to keep our perceived internet rights, we better clean the place up. And soon.
The Internet no longer exists in a vacuum (for better or worse). What transpires here (cyberspace) affects everyone, whether or not they even know what the internet is. We as a community are on borrowed time. And if you don't think so, ask yourself what keeps the Internet going? Government regulated industries throughout the world. What would it take for these governments to start regulating the service, say, to the OFF position rather than trying to foil the unfoilable trafficker in illicit material?
you may be right.. I haven't taken an orgo class in 8 years and haven't looked at internal combustion engines for more. I do know that the RMS measuring (I think I got the right TLA) is expressed on the pump (something like (A + B) / 2). The higher the octane, the more likely it is to ignite correctly (that I do know is correct). The octane it is measured against is pretty inert -- super high flash point = won't ignite at all in an engine. But, them were fuzzy days in college;).
Someone obviously has never taken an organic chemistry class. Take for example octane (C8H18). There are many, many, many different isomers (compounds with the same chemical make-up but with different structure, if I remember, there are around 6! = 720 different octanes). When you go to the pump, there is an octane rating of the fuel. That number is calculated by comparing its combustability to a pure octane mixtured composed of just two isomers of octane. One of the isomers is the most combustible of the octanes, the other is pretty much inert. The combustability is compared and the rating is given as a percent of the flammable octane to the mixture of flammable and inert octane.
Point: altering a molecule slightly (ie adding/subtracting atoms, changing structure) changes the entire chemical principle of the molecule.
Even when dealing with macro molecules (say more than 100 atoms), this is true. cf unsaturated, mono-unsaturated, poly-unsaturated, and partially hydrogenated fats. The difference between these four fats basically amounts to half a dozen molecules and their placement. Yet, unsaturated fat is good for you and the rest are very bad.
Copycat drugs (ie generic) appear on the market after patents expire. As mentioned above, the incentive to innovate (though this is being abused to no end by drug companies and the rest of the health cartel in the US--no amount of patent abuse in the realm of IT comes close to these fat cats) is the knowledge that a drug is theirs to use for 14 years without competition.
Slashdot Mirror
and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices
Of the countries in the 18th century that are as "fruitful" as England was, I wonder why it was England who managed to hold on to an empire (a measure of success in the 18th century) that spanned the world until as recently as 1997?
I am wondering right now, what country on the planet is as "fruitful" as the United States? Let's take for example, China. There is no such thing as intellectual property in China. Yet they managed to gain about 30 yrs in their missle program in the past 10. Is this due to the fact that their freedom of intellectual property (as long as that property is deemed fit by the party), or that MIRV technology was given to them so they could launch satellites?
How about the Soviet Union of the 60s, 70s, and 80s? While it is true that they could maintain with the US up to a point, has the general populace of Russia benefitted from the old CCCP space program? Contrast with America for homework.
Think about it in terms of "brain drain"--the demographic principle that states intelligent people migrate from places where there are few opportunities. They migrate to places where there is opportunity. What is this opportunity? The opportunity to succeed--defined however you like. Most people define this as financial security--especially those from poorer portions of the world.
Onto the heart of the argument:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it
Suppose you have an idea. Just that, an idea. Let's say that your idea is to build a wonder widget. To build this, you would need real property (in the accounting sense) to implement your idea. Further, and most often the case, you would need some help. These two things can be very expensive. Then there is R&D and other intangible expenses. You go to the SBA and get a loan. You pitch the widget, they love it, and loan you $10M seed.
You proceed to build/rent/lease/buy the real property necessary to produce your widgets. You hire technically trained artisans to build your widgets. You get some bright lights to run the R&D, accountants, managers, etc. Without producing one single widget, you have spent a good bit of your $10M. You purchase raw materials.
Acme, Inc. comes along and manages to get a hold of some plans for widgets. With their infrastructure, they gain quickly and soon surpass your production of widgets. Their crack team of salespeople start distributing widgets globally. You, on the otherhand, have no distribution model, have little capital, are in debt, and will probably fail, go bankrupt, and pay debts for the rest of your life.
The sole purpose of a patent is to present a barrier to entry into a market. You do not own your idea, but rather have an exclusive lease. Admittedly, the time given for the lease is not as optimal as it could be. However, most people who start companies need this barrier to get moving. Without this barrier, it would be a guarantee that there would be only one company in the world.
It is true that the "receiver cannot disposses himself of [the idea]," but the patent system is there to prevent that receiver, be it Joe Schmoe or Ultra-Mega Corp, from profitting from the use until you have had a shot at profitting at it. You, as a relatively poor entity, cannot compete with a super corporation. That supercorporation could just take out your livelihood.
I believe that these are valid points and stand against your everyday biggoted, incestuous pervert (not to impeach your source's credibility) who was an exceedingly poor business man and died in debt (that part was to impeach his credibility).
The lesson you should walk away with is that patents prevent monopolies in an overwhelming majority of cases. For every bad patent, there are 100 good. This isn't to say that there are no bad patents, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
PerES Encryption
To suggest LaTeX or other page layout that is not as complete as postscript or pdf, is to trade the language, not the problem.
The popularity of HTML is that it is easy to learn the basics and rich enough to do very complicated formatting. Eventual HTML standards may approach TeX 3.14159 with things like MathML, Style-sheets, etc. However, there will always be vendor specific problems. For those who look at my web page, I made it in 30 minutes with vi. I do have a very good working knowledge of HTML.
XML may be a way to go. As an XML programmer, I enjoy the fact that I have lex and yacc built in with XML, though I don't like the bloat. The project UIML makes the point I am trying to make. The interface should be easy to use such that any graphic designer can use it and those of use who code and hate doing UI can go about coding something real. Keep it simple yet rich. Avoid scripting et al.
Anyway, back to work on what my web page describes.
PerES Encryption
So you're innocent, but you just happen to be out taking a spin by yourself during the time of the murder. Hard to defend alibi. You could conceivably become indicted. That costs money. Whether or not you are innocent, it costs lot's of money (lost wages, bail, lawyers, etc.) and the information still has to be judged in your favor for you to be cleared since it is pretty obvious you made a death threat as revenge for some strife. If the pocketbook argument doesn't work, think about your personal credibility. If that doesn't work, remember bail is not usually given in murder one cases in my parts. Perhaps a suspension of your civil liberties may convince you.
You must remember that it is the context not the content that determines legitimacy. Carnivore can capture tons of content. However, it is impossible to ensure that it captures enough content to discern context. In some cases, like the one I mentioned above, it is impossible for it to determine any context. The English language (as a matter of fact, all sufficiently complex languages) is open for interpretation and your interpretation of a harmless note is not always the easiest to believe.
Was it Ben Franklin who said something to the effect: "Those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."? The fourth and fifth amendments are not there to harbor criminals. They are there to protect the wrongly accused. And just because you claim legitimacy does not mean that you will never be accused. Go ahead and let them sniff? Given enough time and wide enough scope, the FBI could have brought charges against Mother Teresa.
Rather than a court order allow a switch to be thrown, I would prefer a larger price in time and money to install such a system to deter wanton use of this if it can even do what it claims. Remember, it's not how private something really is in the US, but how much privacy you expect that determines what kind of warrant is needed.
PerES Encryption
Don't expect 4 years of deregulation to fix 100 hundred years of government interference (thats about 25 for cable and 75 for phone)
There are more things to do in ADOM.
correct.. think about it like this, there are two types of successful ad campaigns--those that inspire and those that are absolutely horrible. the purpose of ads is less to sell you a product and more to make you remember a name. if you doubt me, look at Mentos. those ads are _so_ bad, but the campaign is successful enough to still be alive after half a dozen years.
every hashing function [h()] is a many to one relationship (domain is larger than the range). Given a set of objects S1 , S2 , S3... such that h(S1) = h(S2) = h(S3) = ...., hashing becomes a list search. The fastest list search is log (n). Therefore, hashing is still O(log n) but is o(C). Don't get O and o confused.
"Here you are Mr. Jon Q. Poor, here's your Maserati have fun!"
"Cool, I will be the envy of the neighborhood. How do you turn it on?"
"With a key."
"Where is the key?"
"Not my problem, I just distribute Maseratis. BTW, I should warn you it gets 8mpg on the highway, so expect an increase in your energy consumption. It also breaks down frequently for no apparent reason and this is to be expected. You know, the general problems you get with owning a late-model Italian luxury sports car. Oh, and, it's probably not street-legal in 34 states, so you can't drive there."
"What should I do about it?"
"Like I said, I just deliver them."
It is elitest to think capitalization is the only problem at work here. It takes skills to utilize the web. It takes time to learn (and teach) these skills. It's as ridiculous to assume that giving a computer to someone will get them on the web as giving someone a book and expecting them to learn to read by themselves. Waste of time, energy, and capital without the resources to teach rudimentary things (you know, like reading) before you get to the great error message of "This Computer Has Performed an Illegal Operation..." one-time on the way! My mother (neither poor nor uneducated) received this error and was quite convinced the police were on their way.
Heart in the right place, mind on acid.
It is interesting to point out that one of the original ars is astrology. That, unfortunately, still exists. Philosophy, oration, and I forget the other two, still exist today. Rhetoric is simply a form of communication. Political rhetoric is little more than pandering (always has been, always will be.. a point Cicero could have learned from Julius Caesar). Not until JFK appeared on television was it popularized for political campaigns (15 or so years after it gained popularity). Not until FDR was the radio utilized extensively for political purposes (at least 15 years after it gained popularity).
The more I read about corps on slashdot, the more I shudder. I am sorry the proletariot (sp?) seem to have most posters oppressed. If you are waiting for someone to wrest power from the corps, are you in for a rude awakening.
Let's start with a simple axiom: the conservation of power (political, monetary, etc). There is only a finite amount of power that can exist. To divide power evenly is a recipe for disaster (cf Mythical Man Month--someone has to have more power to make higher level decisions, otherwise crap output). So, there must exist a pecking order. If you don't like it, take on the alpha-critter. Feel you don't have enough power to take on the alpha-critter, don't start there. Amass power and climb the pecking order. Always remember: power corrupts (as you will be as you climb) and s/he who has the gold makes the rules. Don't like it, find a place that exists that does not follow it (good luck--don't know of one) and move there. Try to start one. Even the hippie communes of the sixties all but fell extinct. And those that still do exist seem to have different goals than those goals expressed here on slashdot (otherwise, we would hear about them.. duh)
So there will always be a need for politics to handle this pecking order. Someone will always have veto power over you. Your creativity must be stifled for the benefit of the many (again, cf Mythical Man Month (specifically the surgical team approach) -- hate to keep quoting this source, but other managerial texts do not seem to have the repore of this book on /.)
Perceptually, there is no difference when looking. The difference comes with strain on the eye. Eye has to work harder to fool the brain at lower refresh rates. This causes all kinds of muscle strain.
Of course, when graphics cards can put up one frame per CRT scan, that is the utmost limit and beyond which there can be no perceieved difference simply because the monitor is the limiting factor.
Just because your eyes cannot discern between events .05 secs apart (in the best case) does not mean that there is no perceived difference. For instance, stand outside at night, stare into a camera flash (this takes less than .1 secs if you are close enough to the camera) and then try to see anything for 1 hr (assuming you didn't blow your rods and cones). Admittedly, this is the most extreme of the situation but it illustrates the point that it isn't the fact that the eye can only "reset" the retina 10-20 times a second, but that the mechanics of the eye that become important for a pleasureable experience.
- There is ridiculous hoopla over child-committed violence (a child is much safer in school, church, home, on the playground than in a car driven by an adult).
- Someone needs to be left holding the bag or newspapers don't sell, lawyers don't get paid, politicians don't get elected, etc.
- Blaming parenting or parental methods can only be successfully done by children of same after therapy (I forgot to mention therapists above).
- The parenting problem this is supposed to band-aid: children using their disposable income unwisely. If a child of 16 can purchase these and other games, he can also:
- Help with car insurance (if old enough)
- Help with car payment (if old enough)
- Save for college
- etc...
- So rather than use disposable income to teach what monetary responsibility is, a hands-off neoclassical idea of 12-yr-olds being miniature adults capable of making a sound monetary decision about things that cost more than $10 (admission to a movie plus snacks--maybe), parents this is aimed at are happy to rely on MegaCorp to raise their child for them.
- I have exactly the same views about drinking ages. Can't drink it if you can't pay for it. Once a child can pay rent, pay car payment, insurance, college, food, etc.., then that child can do what s/he will with the rest of their money without approval.
These things may seem draconian. However, I believe a child's spending money should be proportional to the responsibility the child takes on with fiduciary decisions (ie, how much of his own life s/he is paying for). Otherwise, serious (and often reprehensible) ramifications will arise.Anyone who thinks a teenager should keep all the money they make is teaching the teenager a bad lesson: the wantful things in life are a higher priority than the needful things in life.
Prehaps you are referring to the works of Marx? I believe he espoused that there is no natural right for profit from ownership. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Marx profess that work for profit is wrong? I can see where you would get Marx and Locke confused, what with their completely inconsistent ideologies and all.
Perhaps you do not think that information is the product of work and therefore can be owned? What about those that build houses. Is one capable of owning a house (the product of work and information and raw materials)? Is the house not worth more than the raw materials and work involved? If the house is not worth more than the raw materials and work, then why is there variable "property value?" This is an intangible that can be owned. The intangible revolves around aestheitcs and neighborhood, both of which are being purchased with a house. Otherwise, why would poorer people live in horrible sections of cities with less desireable homes? So it is possible to own an intangible and profit from it--whether it be safer neighborhoods or cash in the wallet.
Oh yes Sybase has these.. Believe me, they work differently and the migration turns out to be a complete rewrite. Stick within the same DBMS, the migration is easier. Since Sybase for Linux is free to develop, it is possible to test it before purchasing to see if it will handle the data.
Sybase takes control of the HDC so it is not a filesystem file. Further, only a dunderhead would want 1 sement that is 30G in size. Sybase is smart and I have had no problems developing on Sybase for Linux and have been using it to play with for several years--never put too much strain on it.. most I have put in at one time was 6 G. Seem to handle it, though.
Hell, why were lynchings ever investigated by the FBI? My GOD, people thought they were an A-OK way to settle perceived greivences.
Mob mentality has gotten lot's of people in trouble.. like Germany (who recently paid out billions to those who were bonded in the 30s and 40s). It was popular!
And if you claim that these analogies are not relevant.. just remember that it was popularity that brought about these atrocities. And popularity as an argument must be weighed in terms of these atrocities.
Oh, but don't you see? All the GL screensavers will run a little bit smoother on the NT servers with the 800MHz proc even when 25 people are logged on using Citrix (you laugh but I have seen a Citrix server with the GL screensavers activated!) jars
I would go so far as to say CBTs do not work as well as instructors for most people. As a software engineer, the only problems in the real world solved by computers are:
they can add numbers very quickly in a complicated way unerringly
they can regurgitate information very quickly. Whether or not it is useful information depends on how well the user can interact with the computer
Starcraft
None of these are qualifications for human teachers and computers have about the same place in classrooms as calculators.
jars
As noted before on /., lots of start-ups are going bust. The reason: advertising does not generate the revenue necessary for smaller media outlets to maintain the power bill (let alone the salaries, etc.). It is only a matter of time before even the great Amazon.com will be forced to not hemorrage money.
So, suppliers of non-corporate information will be forced to do 1 of two things:
Get a real job to fund their media and do that in their spare time (a hot commodity these days) with spare money they make and/or donations (which will inevitable lead to editting in some form)
Give up on the disbersal of information entirely
Case 1 presents the fact that they will not be able to devote the time they feel necessary to provide a good datum of information. Case 2 means no datum whatsoever. Either way, we--as consumers of this new media--are falling from Eden.
The consumers of the media will undoubtedly be forced to consume their media from established media sources. Those that point to Napster as a counterexample, please sit and think a moment. Napster was a creation (some would say the forbidden fruit) of our Eden. The individuals who maintain and develop for Napster need to eat. Since they need to eat, they need money. Without the ability to make enough money and the frigid conditions arising around capitalizing an internet co (which will only get colder), they will eventually turn to some other, more gainful employment. This leaves those people who work in their spare time (case 1 above) to maintain the work (GNUtella and the like).
While open projects can be better than closed, they often (most of the time) require some mysticism to get installed properly, meaning only those with the knowledge are the ones to gain from the knowledge. The time and energy needed to take the mysticism out is (in my opinion, since I program systems and not applications) daunting. My applications interface is obtuse to those not familiar with how the systems work. The system works, but it requires knowledge of the system to use properly.
These circumstances will not halt the development of open media, just slow it to a crawl (about the speed of government projects) as opposed to a funded 40-hr a week job that pays enough to eat and earns enough no to file bankruptcy.
As for xactional software fees, this boils down to subscription services in most cases (since it is easier to handle from the bookkeeping end). Since the climate of capitalization is cooling (and will be in the ice age--comparatively--in another year or two), these will need to be bootstrapped by people operating under case 1 above.
Of course, those companies who do get enough traffic to be supported by ad revenue alone will always conquer those that have xational fees unless, like HBO did in the eighties, provide content far superior than the "free" sites. To provide far superior content requires a lot more effort. More effort + less time from case 1 = less chance of success. I offer into evidence the enormous list of unsupported alpha and beta software for Linux x86. Of course, I said less chance of success and I am perfectly aware that the model does work the other way in special circumstances (ie some GNU projects). This is just one aspect of Open Media.
Look at news sites for another. Nothing outrageous has come along to frighten the giants: Ziff-Davis, AP, and UPI. Look at scientific publications. ACM has a wonderful service of xactional fees. However, this is still a body that existed before 1990 (when the first dial-ups to the internet appeared). Further, it is editted for content. The list continues. I have recently sought a good reference for the ARIES algorithm in all its glory. I managed to find a couple of papers in the midst of soliloquy.
The list continues: IRC and ICQ--distribution of the forbidden fruit of the internet (ie Not-Quite-Free data) will lead to more and more network admins blocking ports for fear of lawsuits like the one against Nike (this will be years in the future--say 3).
Bottom line, there is nothing more valuable than information these days. Those with information or tools to exploit information will be the wealthy ones. And for those who don't know the real golden rule: S/He who has the gold, makes the rules. (read paid-for lobbyists rule the world)
It is very unfortunate that this is happening. How to stop it? Can you stop it? Can you feed all those who believe information want to be free? I would love for the Eden to continue. Fight as you will, no one owns the Internet (just as no one owns the EM spectrum) but the gov'ts of the world will find a way to regulate, squash, and hamper for the best interest of those who innovate (for better or worse) for a living.
jars
Hype Hype Hype-hooray!
At best, we can make a prediction as accurate as a ninety day weather forecast. Let 'em go. Do their thing. Now, let them try to slap behavioral and physical characteristics of statistical significance to genes. (I mean, this child will be 6'2"--providing he doesn't go hiking in the Alps, get lost, get frostbite that turns to gangrene, and lose both legs).
jars
What is the advantage of having such a massive earth-bound telescope (OWT)? I understand that the potential resolution is extremely sharp. However, WRT collecting photons that have journeyed through the atmosphere, the best of telescopes (even with adaptive optics) can only approach the diffraction limit of the telescope. Further work in using phase diversity images can get fairly close to the diffraction limit, but the problem is collecting enough photons to have an out-of-focus image (as well as a computer fast enough to generate restorations from the phase diversity images). In short, as a cost-benefit analysis, will the OWL telescope produce a big enough marginal return on resolution such that it is worth the effort and $$ to create and how will it handle the problems of atmospheric interference?
go to google and look up warez, mp3, etc. Go d/l Napster. There is a big difference between having the cheek to advertise illegal activities and actually doing it in an underground environment.
That is the difference. I know it will never go away, I just want it off the front page. Once off the front page, it may be possible to get the lawyers disinterested. That is my ultimate goal.
My father ran an 31337 board in the early to mid eighties on a wonderful Commode (sic) 64 and 128. I thought that was well and good and the thought never occurred to me to police my actions online since I grew up in an 31337 household. We always had the latest updates to Fast Hack 'em (Let's see how many people know what I'm talking about), monster Warez lists, 20 Meg hard drive, and close to 1500 flippies (homemade with a hole puncher). I didn't see the full ramifications of what I had been doing for close to 20 years until recently. I am trying to stay neutral and understand the vacuum that existed those many years ago is vanishing and the sound of lawyers rushing in is deafening.
Let's take the Warez, pr0n, mp3s, and everything else back underground. Make it extremely difficult to traffic in illicit materials. The only way to do that is for the 31337 of the world to go back to the way it was done before. Go into hiding. Don't advertise. Restrict the 31337 areas. Just as dope smuggling rings that get large are busted, don't let your 31337 circle get too large.
Drug dealers (outside of inner cities) generally don't hang out a shingle. Neither should Warez sites. I don't think the problem can be solved and by forcing a showdown, everyone loses. Instead of priding yourself on your collection of broken links, pride yourself on how many links work. To do that, you have to keep a very low profile. You want votes on t50? Why? The mob figured out a long time ago that you can thrive by keeping a very low profile (unless they have purchased the local gov't). I don't think any w4r3z d00d own any government officals.
Please, let's stop flaunting these (arguably) minor tortes before those with the power (and that is definitely not those who are 31337) make those tortes felonies--like what our good friend Mitnik did for us.
Now, having said that, I will don my asbestos suit. With each passing post of this nature, the doomsayers and rebels and freedom fighters jump out with "How can anyone POSSIBLY regulate ME?" It can be done and will be done. Court decisions are overturned. Laws are changed (that's why we in the US still have a Congress). And it is damn hard to lobby successfully for something that has obvious legal problems. Just as getting rid of scheduling of narcotics will solve the drug problem (trivial solution), making illicit material legal on the internet will cause the problem to go away. That won't happen. Come out of fantasy land. The honeymoon will be over iff we don't do something to police the problem from within. Only then can we get laws in our favor. We are not in a vacuum. Our actions have reprocusions. Take responsibility people!
After reading the article, I have no qualms with some of the "solutions" (read adhesive bandage) that mete out bandwidth by application. I have no problem with people policing their private networks. I have always believed that if we as an online community do not start policing our actions from within, someone else will do it for us--and none of us will like it. I mean, there is no inalienable right in the US to Internet (just as there is no right to a television, camcorder, computer, etc) (contrast with the ideas of the new President/King of Syria).
In short, so that everyone is minimally satisfied, the ridiculous concept of "Blue Laws" should be instituted. Some of the products mentioned in the article are a start in that direction. It only takes several idiots to commit some ridiculous crime that pisses off the wrong person then hide behind the first amendment to really screw up a good thing.
The Free Kevin movement is a good example. Whether or not he should have been freed, he managed to piss off the wrong people. Those that disclaimed "Free Kevin" were merely exercising their first amendment rights. However, like it or not, Mr. Mitnik's antics managed to make people aware the subterfuge possible by an interconnected world. This is what landed him his sentence. These antics, while (arguably) harmless (like the DDoS debacle earlier this year), affected pocketbooks--Da Benjis if you will.
Before I ramble too much more, let me state, for the record:
Napster does traffic in (currently) illegal material as well as legal material.
Squatter's rights as a means of enforcement will never be tolerated by the government.
If something illegal is currently occurring somewhere, it is only a matter of time before the government does something (either regulate by denying service or by taking a substantial take on the profits).
Therefore, if we would like to keep our perceived internet rights, we better clean the place up. And soon.
The Internet no longer exists in a vacuum (for better or worse). What transpires here (cyberspace) affects everyone, whether or not they even know what the internet is. We as a community are on borrowed time. And if you don't think so, ask yourself what keeps the Internet going? Government regulated industries throughout the world. What would it take for these governments to start regulating the service, say, to the OFF position rather than trying to foil the unfoilable trafficker in illicit material?
Point: altering a molecule slightly (ie adding/subtracting atoms, changing structure) changes the entire chemical principle of the molecule.
Even when dealing with macro molecules (say more than 100 atoms), this is true. cf unsaturated, mono-unsaturated, poly-unsaturated, and partially hydrogenated fats. The difference between these four fats basically amounts to half a dozen molecules and their placement. Yet, unsaturated fat is good for you and the rest are very bad.
Copycat drugs (ie generic) appear on the market after patents expire. As mentioned above, the incentive to innovate (though this is being abused to no end by drug companies and the rest of the health cartel in the US--no amount of patent abuse in the realm of IT comes close to these fat cats) is the knowledge that a drug is theirs to use for 14 years without competition.