Great thoughts right up to the end, where you made this mistake.
Code is the paint. Video games are the art.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, perhaps you mean to say the shape and flow of the code (like paint on a canvas) is important to the work of art.
But if I'm not mistaken, why do you dismiss "code" as being merely paint? Just because you are not part of the audience, does not mean there isn't one. Consider the 5k web page contest, the International Obfuscated C contest, and the gallery of CSS descramblers.
I find it rediculous to think none of these things contain any artistry, yet the aformentioned "inverted bicycle wheel" does.
Vi is the tool, descramble.c is the art. Compile and run is merely a partial showing.
True, he didn't qualify his statement by pointing out that everyone's a critic in some sense, perhaps he assumed it was obvious he was making a distinction between someone attempting to be a "professional" critic as opposed to the normal every day kind, but that was his point.
Art after all is in the eye of the beholder. You can wait, if you like, until the "art of gaming" is institutionalized to appreciate it as such. Just don't expect everyone else to wait with you.
I can tell you code is art because I've seen code that fits this description (there's this C decss tool smaller than any perl implementation, for example.)... But I don't have the time or patience to convince you of this fact. So if you don't wish to take my word for it, go ahead and wait for the institution.
If you want to launch into a discussion on digital mediums for art, we can do that as well, but it will merely get me pointing out that lack of precision doesn't seem like a good criterion for fine art...
The 5k web page contest seems like a great example for making this case. We have thousands of entries and only 5k of data, yet how many entries were duplicates? How many were even remarkably similar? The annual C obfuscation contest seems like another likely candidate. This is an annual contest with thousands of entries every year. Complete data set size: 2048 bytes not including whitespace.
To help put it into perspective, current crypto stumps a computer by making it count all possibilities for just 32 bytes of data.
I'd nuke the hard drive and install my own apps. And I can't think of a developer who would do otherwise.
That's the whole point of his policy ideas, nuke the drive and do what you want, just don't come whining to tech support when things don't work. Cause all they'll do is nuke you back to "original".
Heck, if I were a manager (perish the thought) I'd give each developer the same system the users get and say "here's your development system". Then I'd weed them out in the first week by firing anyone who *didn't* re-install their system. Second week drop outs would be "anyone asking for any help from IT".
If you're in a company where developers ask IT for help, and not the other way around, maybe you need better developers.
If a developer needs help, he should be asking the older guy in the next cubicle. Every programmer I ever met would rather spend time washing windows than talking to "tech support" of just about any stripe.
"We can re-image the harddrive" should *always* be tech support's first response to any user with non-approved software. Of course, all company *data* should be on a server, and backed up. Which is a whole other can of worms.
Give me a break, the point isn't "why would someone want this", the point is Microsoft will REVOKE YOUR LICENSE if you do. Big difference.
You go buy your Windows only box, and when I set up boxes for my whole extended family I'll be buying only boxen that dual(or quad maybe) boot.
Unfortuneatly I can't do that even though there are several OEM's who'd love to sell systems to me in that configuration. Why? Because Microsoft charges 3 times as much for every windows copy to any organization who installs windows to dual boot on any box, which was the whole point of that guys article...
Add to this the fact that if I buy a laptop, I'm forced to pay more (by going with a small shop), or pay the "microsoft tax" for a license to Windows I will never use, and can't get a refund for.
So, don't be surprised if I *don't bother* when it comes to using or supporting Windows.
It's the fundamental truths of existence that matter, not this transitory and often useless history and even more hopeless "arbitrary" knowledge.
Forget fraction notations, as long as you understand the meaning behind it, what does the method of expression matter. Learn PI with triangles and it's applications, not this degrees/sin/cos/tan garbage of human invention. After all sin, is really just opposite over adjacent for a triangle with 1/4 of a circle for one of it's angles...
Of course, fundamental concepts are rather unwieldy at times. Ever try to do triple integrals with nothing but limit rules?
This implies another easily forgotten truth: If you want to eat, interact meaningfully with other human beings, or sometimes just get things done, you'll have to learn(or invent) at least a bit of the "trivia". Just try not to make the mistake so many others do of forgetting this stuff doesn't really matter.
However, a DRM system consistent with the framers' intent would be beneficial to everyone. Digital media technologies have undermined the balance between natural rights and maximizing available content. Current DRM systems and supporting legislation go too far in the opposite direction, undermining the peoples' natural rights.
Actually... Digital media technologies definitely haven't "undermined the balance between natural rights and maximizing available content". Why? Because the the digital media tech's you speak of have basically caused an explosion of creativity both online and offline.
Not only that but, in the process corporate profits have not been harmed. So even if you feel that "megacorp" creativity(pop) is the only creativity that matters, there is still no arguement to change copyright law from the way it was in the 80's and 90's. It wasn't until megacorps started pushing DRM unto unsuspecting customers that their profit margins began to hurt.
What will DRM's give us in the future? Hopefully they will help to show how ridiculous the current copyright climate is (70 years after death hah!) and help artists and consumers alike learn to throw off the heavy yoke of media totalitarianism.
hmm... a "music" CD costs me $16.00. The artist gets $.50 of that. Boy, things must be really tough for those record companies...
Personally I can't stand newspapers, they are big unmanageable hunks of paper that no one in their right mind would find useful.
However, I get all the same data from sites like: www.seattletimes.com, and www.nytimes.com. I could print hardcopies if I fancied that... but if I printed everything I read I'd be quite the little tree killer. Also, online I can get at quite a few of the sources the journalists use when writing their stories...
Whether the bits are inked on paper or stored online, they're the same bits.
The *real* problem with mice is that you have to take your hand off the keyboard and put it on the mouse to go from "type" mode to "cursor" mode. If the cursor was just pointing where you looked, computing would become very intuitive. Also, you wouldn't ever have to lift your hands from the home position... Which might just be enough to get lazy programmers like me to use and enjoy GUI pointers. Once we did that, some *useful* gui app's might appear.
An efficient one handed keyboard might do the same if widely adopted. But that's about as likely as the U.S. switching entirely to metric.
Short of a complete re-write of the entire FAT-32 filesystem there is no solution to this
If anyone actually cared about this "problem", there would already be tools to solve it.
Oh wait, PC magazine did an article, and came up with this: Freedom of Association. Good luck actually getting a copy.
P.S. Thanx for your effort A_Non_Moose, try again when it's illegal for me to write a piece of code to do this...
If left unchecked, Open source is set to fatally dismount Microsoft in the next few years. They've already done it in much of the server space, of course Microsoft isn't the fiercest competition there. The desktop is not as far off as you think. In fact, applications aren't the problem. Games aside, I can't think of a single useful application not available on Linux. Hardware support and drivers are the real battle field.
It's new laws like the DMCA, UCITA, and SSSCA that will outlaw reverse engineering and eventually Open Source. These are the real threat. Without the DMCA, everyone wanting to run the newest Windows would be running paid for but cracked versions of WinXP anyways, so the "lease" agreement would have no teeth.
As for.NET as a whole... The courts have ruled before and they're rule again. If you're going to offer something for "lease" you have to be willing to "sell" it too. Allowing "lease" only is exactly the sort of thing that got IBM into trouble in their heyday.
The point is, a license agreement isn't required, never has been. These "rules" are part and parsel to the world we live in. Perhaps part of the problem is the sue-happy mentality in this country.
No knife vendor should be held liable for who I stab, license or no license. Further, no license should protect a vendor from negligence. The biggest problem right now is the lack of judges in their right mind, the distinction should not be a difficult one.
The "agreements" you(and so many others) propose, requiring contract signing for every purchase of any good, are ridiculous. I've already paid for the software with my money, do I need to do it with my freedom as well?
What ices the cake for me, is that it's my tax dollar that pays to enforce these rediculous, agreements that don't even conform to established contract law. Clicking a button is not the same as having your legal team go over and then signing a document after careful consideration. Heck, I give away fewer of my rights buying a house, then I would if I clicked that little grey button. (Keep in mind the rational extreme of licensing is slavery and/or indentured servitude)
Oh, and of course, what if I were to install the software out of the box without clicking the button? Am I free then to do as I wish and post the sucker on the internet, or sell it without paying royalties? If the "license" were the copy protection, I'd be breaking no law.
A set of rules made and enforced to bring order to a creation of the government (roads) is very different than giving corportations license to write new law.
By your arguement if I take a knife and stab someone I've broken the "license agreement" on that knife. Ridiculous. I've broken a totally different law that has little to do with knife manufacture.
Car manufacturers have no say in the rules of the road and that's the way it should stay. (refer to the corvair...)
For similar reasons I feel software manufacturers and movie manufacturers shouldn't have much say in "rules of copyright". Giving them free reign to write laws enforced by the government seems foolish.
The next MS EULA should say anyone can use this peice of software as long as their skin isn't black. It's a free market what's wrong with that?
Or perhaps we could have the "no developers" license? You can only use this peice of software if you've never written a program longer than 2000 lines of code. (This would be for the purpose of stopping reverse engineering of course...)
Sure, that makes a lot of sense... Which is the major reason why our country started life as a Republic not a Democracy.
But in this case I wasn't refering to the individuals judgement for running *my* life... Rather I was referring to their judgement in running their *own* lives.
I trust states to run themselves (not other states) properly. I trust myself and my neighbors (until proven otherwise) to run their own lives properly.
Why does Washington D.C. need to run my life? I *know* I can do a better job than they can... and I often see insane homeless people who I think can also do a better job of running *their* lives than the fed can(and does).
The problem with a "complete" Democracy is you get everyone voting on how everyone else should live their lives...
I'm a card carrying member... Perhaps one of the 3 in my state?
I'm sure no sane one would be for these new laws...
Try to think outside the corporate box Virginia.
If "armies of lawyers" couldn't dictate every little action of the populace, I think you'd see quite a few megacorps disappear. (get rid of copyright for example, and we could forget about MS antitrust measures)
If controlling the government didn't pay off in a big way, you wouldn't see corporations spending millions (billions?) on lobby efforts.
I think you'll find Libertarians derive from an inherent belief that the government can "do no right" and corporations and business by contrast "will reliably do what's in their OWN best interest", but so will citizens(like pirating music). There's a premise that somehow these "interests" will balance each other out naturally...
This belief system is similar to that exhibited by the founders, or at least is one possible explanation for the US constitution as written.
>WE DESERVE to be "forced to run windows" or
>even to have computers outlawed
Don't kid yourself. Copyright is not a natural right. Monopoly, is not a natural right. Opression is not a natural right. Kings are not "ordained by God" and corporations are not "ordained by Darwin".
No one deserves to be opressed. In fact copyright is a social contract, and IMHO one that is nearing the end of it's usefulness. It was once great for "advancing the state of the art". Now all it does is "funnel money into corporate pockets". At an incredible rate I might add!
If you think artists/creators deserve nothing but to be exploited, then copyright is for you!
The game industry (where piracy is *most* rampant) currently makes 30 bn a year. I believe this rivals the entrenched movie industry, and dwarfs the music industry.
Do you think we go home at night and our computers always do everything we want them to without a second thought?
No, we have to struggle and smash and fight to get things working just like everyone else. It's just that our tool-kit includes writing programs to solve our problems.
So, if I decide I need a new email client because Outlook crashes all the time, I might just write one. This is called "scratching the itch", perhaps reading "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" would be helpful?
If I can go online and download source for a simple mail program, I might use that as a starting point instead.
Once the program is written, what do I do with it? There's free software, open source, freeware, shareware, and retail software.
The only ones that even allow other people to fix bugs and make my software better are Free software and Open Source. Since I'm after a bug-free useful email client, and I figure there must be other people with the same need, I'm most likely to choose one of those.
That's why if I were elected president I'd simply stop all federal funding of nearly every sort (especially of biotech research) and shrink the federal government to about 10% of it's current size. I'd spend the rest of my term assessing the results.
Actually, I'm rather lazy, so I'd let a Mr. Harry Browne do all my work.
Slashdot Mirror
Great thoughts right up to the end, where you made this mistake.
Code is the paint. Video games are the art.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, perhaps you mean to say the shape and flow of the code (like paint on a canvas) is important to the work of art.
But if I'm not mistaken, why do you dismiss "code" as being merely paint? Just because you are not part of the audience, does not mean there isn't one. Consider the 5k web page contest, the International Obfuscated C contest, and the gallery of CSS descramblers.
I find it rediculous to think none of these things contain any artistry, yet the aformentioned "inverted bicycle wheel" does.
Vi is the tool, descramble.c is the art. Compile and run is merely a partial showing.
Perhaps you could explain why.
True, he didn't qualify his statement by pointing out that everyone's a critic in some sense, perhaps he assumed it was obvious he was making a distinction between someone attempting to be a "professional" critic as opposed to the normal every day kind, but that was his point.
Art after all is in the eye of the beholder. You can wait, if you like, until the "art of gaming" is institutionalized to appreciate it as such. Just don't expect everyone else to wait with you.
I can tell you code is art because I've seen code that fits this description (there's this C decss tool smaller than any perl implementation, for example.)... But I don't have the time or patience to convince you of this fact. So if you don't wish to take my word for it, go ahead and wait for the institution.
If you want to launch into a discussion on digital mediums for art, we can do that as well, but it will merely get me pointing out that lack of precision doesn't seem like a good criterion for fine art...
The 5k web page contest seems like a great example for making this case. We have thousands of entries and only 5k of data, yet how many entries were duplicates? How many were even remarkably similar? The annual C obfuscation contest seems like another likely candidate. This is an annual contest with thousands of entries every year. Complete data set size: 2048 bytes not including whitespace.
To help put it into perspective, current crypto stumps a computer by making it count all possibilities for just 32 bytes of data.
I keep reading it wondering if you meant something by it.
.sig? What a trollishly wonderful invention! Personally I'd have given up on you after the second post.
Perhaps it's just your
I'd nuke the hard drive and install my own apps. And I can't think of a developer who would do otherwise.
That's the whole point of his policy ideas, nuke the drive and do what you want, just don't come whining to tech support when things don't work. Cause all they'll do is nuke you back to "original".
Heck, if I were a manager (perish the thought) I'd give each developer the same system the users get and say "here's your development system". Then I'd weed them out in the first week by firing anyone who *didn't* re-install their system. Second week drop outs would be "anyone asking for any help from IT".
If you're in a company where developers ask IT for help, and not the other way around, maybe you need better developers.
If a developer needs help, he should be asking the older guy in the next cubicle. Every programmer I ever met would rather spend time washing windows than talking to "tech support" of just about any stripe.
"We can re-image the harddrive" should *always* be tech support's first response to any user with non-approved software. Of course, all company *data* should be on a server, and backed up. Which is a whole other can of worms.
Give me a break, the point isn't "why would someone want this", the point is Microsoft will REVOKE YOUR LICENSE if you do. Big difference.
You go buy your Windows only box, and when I set up boxes for my whole extended family I'll be buying only boxen that dual(or quad maybe) boot.
Unfortuneatly I can't do that even though there are several OEM's who'd love to sell systems to me in that configuration. Why? Because Microsoft charges 3 times as much for every windows copy to any organization who installs windows to dual boot on any box, which was the whole point of that guys article...
Add to this the fact that if I buy a laptop, I'm forced to pay more (by going with a small shop), or pay the "microsoft tax" for a license to Windows I will never use, and can't get a refund for.
So, don't be surprised if I *don't bother* when it comes to using or supporting Windows.
He's safe as long as the suits don't find out...
It's the fundamental truths of existence that matter, not this transitory and often useless history and even more hopeless "arbitrary" knowledge.
Forget fraction notations, as long as you understand the meaning behind it, what does the method of expression matter. Learn PI with triangles and it's applications, not this degrees/sin/cos/tan garbage of human invention. After all sin, is really just opposite over adjacent for a triangle with 1/4 of a circle for one of it's angles...
Of course, fundamental concepts are rather unwieldy at times. Ever try to do triple integrals with nothing but limit rules?
This implies another easily forgotten truth: If you want to eat, interact meaningfully with other human beings, or sometimes just get things done, you'll have to learn(or invent) at least a bit of the "trivia". Just try not to make the mistake so many others do of forgetting this stuff doesn't really matter.
Actually... Digital media technologies definitely haven't "undermined the balance between natural rights and maximizing available content". Why? Because the the digital media tech's you speak of have basically caused an explosion of creativity both online and offline.
Not only that but, in the process corporate profits have not been harmed. So even if you feel that "megacorp" creativity(pop) is the only creativity that matters, there is still no arguement to change copyright law from the way it was in the 80's and 90's. It wasn't until megacorps started pushing DRM unto unsuspecting customers that their profit margins began to hurt.
What will DRM's give us in the future? Hopefully they will help to show how ridiculous the current copyright climate is (70 years after death hah!) and help artists and consumers alike learn to throw off the heavy yoke of media totalitarianism.
hmm... a "music" CD costs me $16.00. The artist gets $.50 of that. Boy, things must be really tough for those record companies...
Personally I can't stand newspapers, they are big unmanageable hunks of paper that no one in their right mind would find useful.
However, I get all the same data from sites like: www.seattletimes.com, and www.nytimes.com. I could print hardcopies if I fancied that... but if I printed everything I read I'd be quite the little tree killer. Also, online I can get at quite a few of the sources the journalists use when writing their stories...
Whether the bits are inked on paper or stored online, they're the same bits.
The *real* problem with mice is that you have to take your hand off the keyboard and put it on the mouse to go from "type" mode to "cursor" mode. If the cursor was just pointing where you looked, computing would become very intuitive. Also, you wouldn't ever have to lift your hands from the home position... Which might just be enough to get lazy programmers like me to use and enjoy GUI pointers. Once we did that, some *useful* gui app's might appear.
An efficient one handed keyboard might do the same if widely adopted. But that's about as likely as the U.S. switching entirely to metric.
If anyone actually cared about this "problem", there would already be tools to solve it. Oh wait, PC magazine did an article, and came up with this: Freedom of Association. Good luck actually getting a copy.
P.S. Thanx for your effort A_Non_Moose, try again when it's illegal for me to write a piece of code to do this...
Until the DMCA was passed.
.NET as a whole... The courts have ruled before and they're rule again. If you're going to offer something for "lease" you have to be willing to "sell" it too. Allowing "lease" only is exactly the sort of thing that got IBM into trouble in their heyday.
If left unchecked, Open source is set to fatally dismount Microsoft in the next few years. They've already done it in much of the server space, of course Microsoft isn't the fiercest competition there. The desktop is not as far off as you think. In fact, applications aren't the problem. Games aside, I can't think of a single useful application not available on Linux. Hardware support and drivers are the real battle field.
It's new laws like the DMCA, UCITA, and SSSCA that will outlaw reverse engineering and eventually Open Source. These are the real threat. Without the DMCA, everyone wanting to run the newest Windows would be running paid for but cracked versions of WinXP anyways, so the "lease" agreement would have no teeth.
As for
The point is, a license agreement isn't required, never has been. These "rules" are part and parsel to the world we live in. Perhaps part of the problem is the sue-happy mentality in this country.
No knife vendor should be held liable for who I stab, license or no license. Further, no license should protect a vendor from negligence. The biggest problem right now is the lack of judges in their right mind, the distinction should not be a difficult one.
The "agreements" you(and so many others) propose, requiring contract signing for every purchase of any good, are ridiculous. I've already paid for the software with my money, do I need to do it with my freedom as well?
What ices the cake for me, is that it's my tax dollar that pays to enforce these rediculous, agreements that don't even conform to established contract law. Clicking a button is not the same as having your legal team go over and then signing a document after careful consideration. Heck, I give away fewer of my rights buying a house, then I would if I clicked that little grey button. (Keep in mind the rational extreme of licensing is slavery and/or indentured servitude)
Oh, and of course, what if I were to install the software out of the box without clicking the button? Am I free then to do as I wish and post the sucker on the internet, or sell it without paying royalties? If the "license" were the copy protection, I'd be breaking no law.
A set of rules made and enforced to bring order to a creation of the government (roads) is very different than giving corportations license to write new law.
By your arguement if I take a knife and stab someone I've broken the "license agreement" on that knife. Ridiculous. I've broken a totally different law that has little to do with knife manufacture.
Car manufacturers have no say in the rules of the road and that's the way it should stay. (refer to the corvair...)
For similar reasons I feel software manufacturers and movie manufacturers shouldn't have much say in "rules of copyright". Giving them free reign to write laws enforced by the government seems foolish.
Sounds like you should be targeting Apache. Good luck, you'll need it.
The next MS EULA should say anyone can use this peice of software as long as their skin isn't black. It's a free market what's wrong with that?
Or perhaps we could have the "no developers" license? You can only use this peice of software if you've never written a program longer than 2000 lines of code. (This would be for the purpose of stopping reverse engineering of course...)
Sure, that makes a lot of sense... Which is the major reason why our country started life as a Republic not a Democracy.
But in this case I wasn't refering to the individuals judgement for running *my* life... Rather I was referring to their judgement in running their *own* lives.
I trust states to run themselves (not other states) properly. I trust myself and my neighbors (until proven otherwise) to run their own lives properly.
Why does Washington D.C. need to run my life? I *know* I can do a better job than they can... and I often see insane homeless people who I think can also do a better job of running *their* lives than the fed can(and does).
The problem with a "complete" Democracy is you get everyone voting on how everyone else should live their lives...
Or far worse, the dubious judgement of individuals.
Write to Mr. Browne. www.harrybrowne.org
I'm a card carrying member... Perhaps one of the 3 in my state?
I'm sure no sane one would be for these new laws...
Try to think outside the corporate box Virginia.
If "armies of lawyers" couldn't dictate every little action of the populace, I think you'd see quite a few megacorps disappear. (get rid of copyright for example, and we could forget about MS antitrust measures)
If controlling the government didn't pay off in a big way, you wouldn't see corporations spending millions (billions?) on lobby efforts.
I think you'll find Libertarians derive from an inherent belief that the government can "do no right" and corporations and business by contrast "will reliably do what's in their OWN best interest", but so will citizens(like pirating music). There's a premise that somehow these "interests" will balance each other out naturally...
This belief system is similar to that exhibited by the founders, or at least is one possible explanation for the US constitution as written.
>WE DESERVE to be "forced to run windows" or
>even to have computers outlawed
Don't kid yourself. Copyright is not a natural right. Monopoly, is not a natural right. Opression is not a natural right. Kings are not "ordained by God" and corporations are not "ordained by Darwin".
No one deserves to be opressed. In fact copyright is a social contract, and IMHO one that is nearing the end of it's usefulness. It was once great for "advancing the state of the art". Now all it does is "funnel money into corporate pockets". At an incredible rate I might add!
If you think artists/creators deserve nothing but to be exploited, then copyright is for you!
The game industry (where piracy is *most* rampant) currently makes 30 bn a year. I believe this rivals the entrenched movie industry, and dwarfs the music industry.
Do you think we go home at night and our computers always do everything we want them to without a second thought?
No, we have to struggle and smash and fight to get things working just like everyone else. It's just that our tool-kit includes writing programs to solve our problems.
So, if I decide I need a new email client because Outlook crashes all the time, I might just write one. This is called "scratching the itch", perhaps reading "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" would be helpful?
If I can go online and download source for a simple mail program, I might use that as a starting point instead.
Once the program is written, what do I do with it? There's free software, open source, freeware, shareware, and retail software.
The only ones that even allow other people to fix bugs and make my software better are Free software and Open Source. Since I'm after a bug-free useful email client, and I figure there must be other people with the same need, I'm most likely to choose one of those.
Now that *would* be an efficient use of this technology...
Um ya... and it should be illegal for phone solicitors to call me, because that isn't the use I intend when I pay my phone bill every month...
That's why if I were elected president I'd simply stop all federal funding of nearly every sort (especially of biotech research) and shrink the federal government to about 10% of it's current size. I'd spend the rest of my term assessing the results.
Actually, I'm rather lazy, so I'd let a Mr. Harry Browne do all my work.