BUT the noisiest argument tends to "I want my shit for free"
That's nonsense, pirates are perfectly OK to pay for the stuff (some studies shows that pirates spend more on intelectual property then average non-pirate). What they aren't OK with is completeley artifical and unnecessary restriction on sharing the information which is simply stupid and serves only to the publishing and distribution monopolies so they can protect their distributions channels and revenue streams and obsolete bussiness models.
Pirates don't pirate because they don't want to pay to the authors. Pirates love to consume intelectual property, why would they want to hurt the people which produce it?
Supporters of copyright are modern-time pony-express owners fighting against the emerging automobile industry. Copyright is unsustainable in digital age and does much more harm then good. Any sane person should see this now and that's the main reason why pirates do what they do. It just does't make sense to support artifical restrictions which tries to ignore technological progress (we saw this situation many times in the history)
Should IP be protected? Absolutely. I like that people get paid to be creative and provide me with entertainment. If we don't protect it and pay the people who created it (and yes, when necessary, distributed it), then we'll not have it anymore.
Protecting IP and paying authors are two diferrent thinks. I believe that the best system would NOT protect IP (so you can share it freely) but would provide payments to authors via some other means (how to do it correctly would be a matter of further public discussion but i believe it is possible to do it. For example basic science is very creative process, part of it is funded by goverment and the results are public domain and freely sharable. Why could something similar not work for other IP?)
Also, if you insist that IP should be absolutely protected, how would we do it? Do you support PIPA/SOPA/ACTA? (I believe that it is imposible to effectively control flows of public information without giving up fundamental freedoms and rights to secure comunication and generaly creating some orwellian totalitarian regime)
For most cases it indeed doesn't make economic sense to take resources from space back to earth.
But you are forgetting the bigger picture. The ultimate goal of space program is to get people to other planets (so if earth goes kaboom in the future, humanity survives) and for that huge amount of material must be transported out of earth gravity well. This is very expensive. But imagine if we build station on moon and mine some usefull mineralsh here. Now we don't have to drag all the material from the earth, we can take some from the moon which has much lower gravity. It makes economic sense now, doesn't it?
If i understand it correctly, they just made bosson condensate from from polariton quasiparticles.
Bosson condensate is nothing new. Bossons are integer spin particles which means they can occupy the same energy level or quantum state with other bossons of the same type (on other hand, fermions - particles with half integer spin - never occupy same quantum state with other fermions of the same type, that's why electrons are placed in energetic layers around atom nuclei).
Lot of bossons in basic energy state basicaly behave as single particle (they all have same quantum state).
What's new in this experiment is that boson condensate from polariton quasiparticles can have macroscopic dimensions and can exist in room temperatures and it behaves like superfluid!
No. That is precisely the point. There won't be a scarcity. The moment the art is sold, shown, exhibited, in the world you propose it could instantly be copied printed replicated by anyone who happens to get near it with a camer.
This is a good thing! The more culture is shared, the greater benefit for society as whole.
Let me know when you are willing to work for free
Nobody want's you to work for free. This just shows that current copyright is broken because it cannot stop copying and without this control of distribution it cannot provide compensations to artist. We clearly need new model of artist compensation, which won't limit distribution of information! Artist are shooting themself into foot if they support current form of copyright.
Any accountant of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay. Any software developer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay. Any website designer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay. Any scientist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
I'll sign up with your "let's make all copywritten works free" when you agree to do your own job for free too.
Nobody wants you to work for free. You can sign any contract with any employer you want. Just stop saying others what they can do with information they legaly acquired.
Your civil rights? Really, you have a civil right to enjoy someone else's works without paying them?
Of cource i have! I just "enjoyed" reading your work (your comment) without paying for it!
But you thing it is wrong? You thing you shall pay for using other's intelectual works? But what is exactly this work you are speaking of? One word, two words or whole sentence? I bet you said some copyrighted sentences in your life without paying anyone or without even noticing they were copyrighted. (Before you start to write that only longer unique combinations of words can be copyrighted let me say that i hear quite often about copyright court cases involving as little as 3 words or few seconds of complete silence!)
The effect of gravitational lensing can be computed precisly from general theory of relativity. The experimental observation is just verification of it.
One of the reason we introduced dark matter is that some gravitational lenses bended the light more then the theory expected.
But we have also other observations which hints us toward dark matter - unusualy fast rotation of some galaxies and the structure of CMB to name two.
I realize Slashdot comments tend to have an Apple slant (to put it mildly), but come on, this is completely obvious "inspiration" from Apple.
What's wrong with inspiration? Would you prefer world where people don't take inspiration from each other? World where everyone reinvents the wheel and once the best wheel is invented and patended, you can only make sub-par wheels?
I don't see what's wrong with copying good ideas. Unless Vizio stamps apple trademark on their products, it's benefical for end-user if they inspire themself in good way from it's competitors.
I think that the agregators don't need to concern with the news site owners opinions at all. It's public info so they shall share it as they like. If the agregator websites are concerned with copyright, just make agregator in javascript, where each visitor would download the news himself and there would be no contact between the agregator website and news website (some optimalisations and caching will be probably needed but if caching is considered copyright violation, we shall ban all caching proxies and caching browsers in the world)
Copyrights themselves aren't the problem, copyrights that extend for decades without the creator having to extend them and without regard to the creator's interests that are the problem. The reality is that there's a bunch of content that's been abandoned by the owners that would have been public domain after 28 years previously, but now thanks to the super long automatic copyright terms isn't available to anybody.
That's not a feature of copyright, that's a feature of what happens when politicians give corporations what they want without concern for the consequences.
I always laugh (bitterly) when i read comments like yours which basicaly say: "the system is perfect, people just need to stop abusing it". Many systems and politicians tried to change people so they behave according to their ideas. Guess what? It never works.
You never change people, you always need to change the system.
Current copyright is clearly broken, it doesn't help to say 'copyright is ok, if just media groups stop lobbying and it lasts for reasonable time'. Media industry never stop lobbying for longer copyright, it's in their interest, also short copyright won't work either, people will still pirate stuff, because we live in digital age and you can't control distribution of public information, without orwellian control of everyones lives.
Instead of trying to fix broken copyright and somehow tune it to current technological level, we need to find new way of compensating creators for their work, which will not limit distribution of information! Such system could exist, people are willing to pay for the content if you dont's try to throw artifical and stupid limitations under their feet.
All the Cable co's have to do is pre-normalize the commercials to the program being played, they can do this by just keeping a running loudness average and normalizing on the fly. It's so easy you wonder why they haven't been required to do it before now.
Dunno about US, but here (czech republic) the TV companies complain that they can't normalise the comercials, because the are the property of the companies paying for the ads and any change in them will institute a violation of copyright.
From my perspective it's only existed for 59 years and its destruction is always and has always been imminent. The universe stops existing for people every single day. Nobody has a vested interest in the universe's existance; we're only visitors here. Nobody stays forever.
So it's ok to make a giant party like ther's no tomorow, burn all non-renewable resources, have no kids and generaly ignore any future events after my predicted lifespan?
That's pretty dump and simple-minded idea. "After us: the flood" (dunno if this saying has any meaning in english sorry:)
Change will happen when society makes drug use of any kind completely unpalatable and unacceptable
Then, change will never happen. Human use of drugs is as old as our civilisation itself, many drugs help us cope with the existential aspects of our lives (life has no meaning from the perspective of universe, no matter what we do, our civilisation will be probably exting in a short geological moment. Also, our life is often filled with daily stereotype which is quite hard to deal with.)
And by drugs, i mean not just currently illegal substances, i mean also alcohol, many legal medicaments, watching television, browsing internet and any other non-creative activities we often do when we want to escape from every-day stereotypes and boredoms.
The real solution is not to ban all drugs. The real solution is to ban dangerous drugs, which have major negative impact on the surrounding of the persons abusing them. And the dangerousness of a drug should be based on rational arguments and scientific studies, no by religious and political opinions.
I don't have problem with banning meth, heroin, barbiturates etc. In majority of cases, the consumation of those leads to physical dependence, and as a consequence to criminal activity (stealing to buy new dose) of subjects using them.
But i don't see why is THC, LSD, magical mushrooms, ketamine etc illegal. There is no physical dependence and no criminal activity i'm aware of connected to the use of those and other similar hallucinogens. Use of those "soft" drugs is no more dangerous then adrenaline sports or any other perfectly legal activities. I know many people who use those drugs occasionaly and lead perfectly proper life, have work, families etc.
I thing that the legal system should be fair. So either ban all non-usefull activities including drugs, alcohol, watching tv shows, adrenaline sports etc, or legalise drugs which are as safe as those activities.
Have a mechanism that can quickly raise a physical barrier (nice thick steel plate or something) in front of where you're supposed to stop at the red. The barrier lowers when it's green.
You don't have ambulance / fire department / police cars, which could drive trough red lights in U.S. when in emergency? Or do you use some technologicaly advanced models which could fly / jump over the barrier like in James Bond movie?:)
Linux has had better support for ATI than Nvidia cards for at least a generation now.
Oh realy? How many windows games did you try under wine? From my experience anythink but nvidia binary drivers is pain and doesn't work properly for commercial games.
I don't believe that there is no significiant cost difference between paper and electronic book. If it was true, why are so many paper books out of print if the price for printing/transporting/storing and selling them in brick and stone shop is so low?
Basicaly ESA lowered the signal strength of their antennas, so when the signal was picked up byt the probe, it had strength as if it would be near mars.
Some other rummors: A source from the aerospace industry explains that P-G is possibly in safe mode and it always turns off each time when it goes into shadow of Earth.
The unnamed person also thinks why it was impossible to contact P-G with Russian space antennas - the spacecraft is above then only when it's in the shadow of Earth.
But the European station in Pert has contacted P-G when the spacecraft was in the sunny side of the Earth. It's the only period when there's electricity on board.
Around 01:00 Moscow Time (4 p.m. EST on November 23), a poster on the forum of the Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine reported that the telemetry from the spacecraft had been received as well. A data set was reportedly downlinked to a European ground station and transferred to NPO Lavochkin for analysis. Shortly thereafter, the official Russian media quoted a European representative in Moscow as saying that ESA ground station in Perth had received telemetry from the spacecraft. According to Novosti Kosmonavtiki's Igor Lissov, an emergency telemetry frame from the radio-system onboard the cruise stage, PM, had been received, confirming normal power supply and the operation of the communication gear. During the next communication pass starting at 03:30 Moscow Time, ground controllers hoped to downlink telemetry via probe's main flight control computer, BKU, essentially a brain of the mission.
Copyright is a powerful tool in the hands of free software authors, and a force for the public good. Obviously is used for evil as well, and current copyright duration is just offensive.
Thats not true, free software would be much better without copyright. Disband copyright and see how the ammount of free software increases because now there is no reason to keep it closed. Licences like GPL are neccessary only in world with copyright.
Amiga emulation in linux is perfectly OK using either e-uae or winuae under wine. I use it quite often for retro gaming and i have yet to see a game i can't emulate correctly.
The fun part is, firefox displays huge security warning for my self-signed certificate, but displays just litle red cross in url bar for websites using certificate signed by DigiNotar (see https://loket.amsterdam.nl/ for yourself), which i explicitly removed from the list of trusted autorities.
Slashdot Mirror
BUT the noisiest argument tends to "I want my shit for free"
That's nonsense, pirates are perfectly OK to pay for the stuff (some studies shows that pirates spend more on intelectual property then average non-pirate). What they aren't OK with is completeley artifical and unnecessary restriction on sharing the information which is simply stupid and serves only to the publishing and distribution monopolies so they can protect their distributions channels and revenue streams and obsolete bussiness models.
Pirates don't pirate because they don't want to pay to the authors. Pirates love to consume intelectual property, why would they want to hurt the people which produce it?
Supporters of copyright are modern-time pony-express owners fighting against the emerging automobile industry. Copyright is unsustainable in digital age and does much more harm then good. Any sane person should see this now and that's the main reason why pirates do what they do. It just does't make sense to support artifical restrictions which tries to ignore technological progress (we saw this situation many times in the history)
Should IP be protected? Absolutely. I like that people get paid to be creative and provide me with entertainment. If we don't protect it and pay the people who created it (and yes, when necessary, distributed it), then we'll not have it anymore.
Protecting IP and paying authors are two diferrent thinks. I believe that the best system would NOT protect IP (so you can share it freely) but would provide payments to authors via some other means (how to do it correctly would be a matter of further public discussion but i believe it is possible to do it. For example basic science is very creative process, part of it is funded by goverment and the results are public domain and freely sharable. Why could something similar not work for other IP?)
Also, if you insist that IP should be absolutely protected, how would we do it? Do you support PIPA/SOPA/ACTA? (I believe that it is imposible to effectively control flows of public information without giving up fundamental freedoms and rights to secure comunication and generaly creating some orwellian totalitarian regime)
For most cases it indeed doesn't make economic sense to take resources from space back to earth.
But you are forgetting the bigger picture. The ultimate goal of space program is to get people to other planets (so if earth goes kaboom in the future, humanity survives) and for that huge amount of material must be transported out of earth gravity well. This is very expensive. But imagine if we build station on moon and mine some usefull mineralsh here. Now we don't have to drag all the material from the earth, we can take some from the moon which has much lower gravity. It makes economic sense now, doesn't it?
If i understand it correctly, they just made bosson condensate from from polariton quasiparticles.
Bosson condensate is nothing new. Bossons are integer spin particles which means they can occupy the same energy level or quantum state with other bossons of the same type (on other hand, fermions - particles with half integer spin - never occupy same quantum state with other fermions of the same type, that's why electrons are placed in energetic layers around atom nuclei).
Lot of bossons in basic energy state basicaly behave as single particle (they all have same quantum state).
What's new in this experiment is that boson condensate from polariton quasiparticles can have macroscopic dimensions and can exist in room temperatures and it behaves like superfluid!
No. That is precisely the point. There won't be a scarcity. The moment the art is sold, shown, exhibited, in the world you propose it could instantly be copied printed replicated by anyone who happens to get near it with a camer.
This is a good thing! The more culture is shared, the greater benefit for society as whole.
Let me know when you are willing to work for free
Nobody want's you to work for free. This just shows that current copyright is broken because it cannot stop copying and without this control of distribution it cannot provide compensations to artist. We clearly need new model of artist compensation, which won't limit distribution of information! Artist are shooting themself into foot if they support current form of copyright.
Any accountant of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any software developer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any website designer of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
Any scientist of any form worth their salt is doing it because they geinuinely like the artform, and would do so pay or no pay.
I'll sign up with your "let's make all copywritten works free" when you agree to do your own job for free too.
Nobody wants you to work for free. You can sign any contract with any employer you want.
Just stop saying others what they can do with information they legaly acquired.
Your civil rights? Really, you have a civil right to enjoy someone else's works without paying them?
Of cource i have! I just "enjoyed" reading your work (your comment) without paying for it!
But you thing it is wrong? You thing you shall pay for using other's intelectual works? But what is exactly this work you are speaking of? One word, two words or whole sentence? I bet you said some copyrighted sentences in your life without paying anyone or without even noticing they were copyrighted. (Before you start to write that only longer unique combinations of words can be copyrighted let me say that i hear quite often about copyright court cases involving as little as 3 words or few seconds of complete silence!)
The effect of gravitational lensing can be computed precisly from general theory of relativity. The experimental observation is just verification of it.
One of the reason we introduced dark matter is that some gravitational lenses bended the light more then the theory expected.
But we have also other observations which hints us toward dark matter - unusualy fast rotation of some galaxies and the structure of CMB to name two.
I realize Slashdot comments tend to have an Apple slant (to put it mildly), but come on, this is completely obvious "inspiration" from Apple.
What's wrong with inspiration? Would you prefer world where people don't take inspiration from each other? World where everyone reinvents the wheel and once the best wheel is invented and patended, you can only make sub-par wheels?
I don't see what's wrong with copying good ideas. Unless Vizio stamps apple trademark on their products, it's benefical for end-user if they inspire themself in good way from it's competitors.
I think that the agregators don't need to concern with the news site owners opinions at all. It's public info so they shall share it as they like.
If the agregator websites are concerned with copyright, just make agregator in javascript, where each visitor would download the news himself and there would be no contact between the agregator website and news website (some optimalisations and caching will be probably needed but if caching is considered copyright violation, we shall ban all caching proxies and caching browsers in the world)
Copyrights themselves aren't the problem, copyrights that extend for decades without the creator having to extend them and without regard to the creator's interests that are the problem. The reality is that there's a bunch of content that's been abandoned by the owners that would have been public domain after 28 years previously, but now thanks to the super long automatic copyright terms isn't available to anybody.
That's not a feature of copyright, that's a feature of what happens when politicians give corporations what they want without concern for the consequences.
I always laugh (bitterly) when i read comments like yours which basicaly say: "the system is perfect, people just need to stop abusing it". Many systems and politicians tried to change people so they behave according to their ideas. Guess what? It never works.
You never change people, you always need to change the system.
Current copyright is clearly broken, it doesn't help to say 'copyright is ok, if just media groups stop lobbying and it lasts for reasonable time'. Media industry never stop lobbying for longer copyright, it's in their interest, also short copyright won't work either, people will still pirate stuff, because we live in digital age and you can't control distribution of public information, without orwellian control of everyones lives.
Instead of trying to fix broken copyright and somehow tune it to current technological level, we need to find new way of compensating creators for their work, which will not limit distribution of information! Such system could exist, people are willing to pay for the content if you dont's try to throw artifical and stupid limitations under their feet.
The only sane solution would be to declare all software pattents void.
All the Cable co's have to do is pre-normalize the commercials to the program being played, they can do this by just keeping a running loudness average and normalizing on the fly. It's so easy you wonder why they haven't been required to do it before now.
Dunno about US, but here (czech republic) the TV companies complain that they can't normalise the comercials, because the are the property of the companies paying for the ads and any change in them will institute a violation of copyright.
From my perspective it's only existed for 59 years and its destruction is always and has always been imminent. The universe stops existing for people every single day. Nobody has a vested interest in the universe's existance; we're only visitors here. Nobody stays forever.
So it's ok to make a giant party like ther's no tomorow, burn all non-renewable resources, have no kids and generaly ignore any future events after my predicted lifespan?
That's pretty dump and simple-minded idea. "After us: the flood" (dunno if this saying has any meaning in english sorry:)
Change will happen when society makes drug use of any kind completely unpalatable and unacceptable
Then, change will never happen. Human use of drugs is as old as our civilisation itself, many drugs help us cope with the existential aspects of our lives (life has no meaning from the perspective of universe, no matter what we do, our civilisation will be probably exting in a short geological moment. Also, our life is often filled with daily stereotype which is quite hard to deal with.)
And by drugs, i mean not just currently illegal substances, i mean also alcohol, many legal medicaments, watching television, browsing internet and any other non-creative activities we often do when we want to escape from every-day stereotypes and boredoms.
The real solution is not to ban all drugs. The real solution is to ban dangerous drugs, which have major negative impact on the surrounding of the persons abusing them. And the dangerousness of a drug should be based on rational arguments and scientific studies, no by religious and political opinions.
I don't have problem with banning meth, heroin, barbiturates etc. In majority of cases, the consumation of those leads to physical dependence, and as a consequence to criminal activity (stealing to buy new dose) of subjects using them.
But i don't see why is THC, LSD, magical mushrooms, ketamine etc illegal. There is no physical dependence and no criminal activity i'm aware of connected to the use of those and other similar hallucinogens. Use of those "soft" drugs is no more dangerous then adrenaline sports or any other perfectly legal activities. I know many people who use those drugs occasionaly and lead perfectly proper life, have work, families etc.
I thing that the legal system should be fair. So either ban all non-usefull activities including drugs, alcohol, watching tv shows, adrenaline sports etc, or legalise drugs which are as safe as those activities.
Have a mechanism that can quickly raise a physical barrier (nice thick steel plate or something) in front of where you're supposed to stop at the red. The barrier lowers when it's green.
You don't have ambulance / fire department / police cars, which could drive trough red lights in U.S. when in emergency? Or do you use some technologicaly advanced models which could fly / jump over the barrier like in James Bond movie?:)
Linux has had better support for ATI than Nvidia cards for at least a generation now.
Oh realy? How many windows games did you try under wine? From my experience anythink but nvidia binary drivers is pain and doesn't work properly for commercial games.
I don't believe that there is no significiant cost difference between paper and electronic book.
If it was true, why are so many paper books out of print if the price for printing/transporting/storing and selling them in brick and stone shop is so low?
The thing about reality is that it does not go away, even if you don't believe in it.
Nice use of P.K. Dick quote, couldn't agree more (also with the rest of your comment).
Some more usefull info can be found in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15850516
Basicaly ESA lowered the signal strength of their antennas, so when the signal was picked up byt the probe, it had strength as if it would be near mars.
Some other rummors:
A source from the aerospace industry explains that P-G is possibly in safe mode and it always turns off each time when it goes into shadow of Earth.
The unnamed person also thinks why it was impossible to contact P-G with Russian space antennas - the spacecraft is above then only when it's in the shadow of Earth.
But the European station in Pert has contacted P-G when the spacecraft was in the sunny side of the Earth. It's the only period when there's electricity on board.
Up to date info about teh mission can be fount at http://www.russianspaceweb.com/phobos_grunt_launch.html
Latest entry states:
November 24 developments
Around 01:00 Moscow Time (4 p.m. EST on November 23), a poster on the forum of the Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine reported that the telemetry from the spacecraft had been received as well. A data set was reportedly downlinked to a European ground station and transferred to NPO Lavochkin for analysis. Shortly thereafter, the official Russian media quoted a European representative in Moscow as saying that ESA ground station in Perth had received telemetry from the spacecraft. According to Novosti Kosmonavtiki's Igor Lissov, an emergency telemetry frame from the radio-system onboard the cruise stage, PM, had been received, confirming normal power supply and the operation of the communication gear. During the next communication pass starting at 03:30 Moscow Time, ground controllers hoped to downlink telemetry via probe's main flight control computer, BKU, essentially a brain of the mission.
Copyright is a powerful tool in the hands of free software authors, and a force for the public good. Obviously is used for evil as well, and current copyright duration is just offensive.
Thats not true, free software would be much better without copyright. Disband copyright and see how the ammount of free software increases because now there is no reason to keep it closed. Licences like GPL are neccessary only in world with copyright.
Amiga emulation in linux is perfectly OK using either e-uae or winuae under wine. I use it quite often for retro gaming and i have yet to see a game i can't emulate correctly.
Here is a PDF file with the list of EU council member countries and information how they voted on this legislation. I'm glad that at least my country (Czech Rep.) voted against it: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st14/st14132.en11.pdf
The fun part is, firefox displays huge security warning for my self-signed certificate, but displays just litle red cross in url bar for websites using certificate signed by DigiNotar (see https://loket.amsterdam.nl/ for yourself), which i explicitly removed from the list of trusted autorities.
So we should make google and other search engines illegal? They link to the "illegal content" all the time and they know it (just try to search for piratebay). Also if i write an article on my blog about file-sharing and include link to the pirate-bay, i shall be prosecuted according to your logic? No! Making linking to dubious content ilegal is serious threat to free speech. Czech pirate party is currently fighting for the right to link by launching the site http://tipnafilm.cz/ where they link to several thousands of copyrighted movies. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/linking-is-not-a-crime-czech-pirate-party-declares-war-on-anti-piracy-unionlinking-is-not-a-crime-czech-pirate-party-declares-war-on-big-content.ars for more details.