I believe the French government has been placing human genome data in the public domain. I don't have any references for this however. Any french people care to comment?
Our calendar actually started as a decimal calendar, before the Julius Caeser added some new months named after himself and Augustus. This link explains the original roman calendar. If you look at the names of the latter months (December for example) you can see that they are named according to the original latin numbering system.
Julius Caeser's changes gave us the 12 month calendar, Pope Gregory's (13th) reforms gave us leap years. Interestingly, Augustus Caeser later stole a day from February to make his month more impressive than Julius's (July).
KirTakat writes: "We see lots of links to information about MP3s
in America (by this I mean most English speaking countries...
(not allowed to use obcenities am I)
Drat you Yank, drat you to heck. You can take your "English speaking world equals America" attitude and perform a painful and possibly imposible physical act with it. I hope the EU tips all your filthy bananas into the ocean. I hope that Texis suceeds from the Union. I hope that the Canadians invade and burn your capital to the ground again. I hope you get Bill Gates as your next president. I hope that the hormones and genetic agents in your argricultural and horticultural products make you all grow inappropriate sexual characteristics. [expletive which refers to archaic term for sharpening a scythe].
That's a good point; perjury is against the law, and no contract can compel you to break the law.
You've agreed to sign over the rights to what you invented while working for your former employers, but there's no reason you have to let them write the patent application.
Get your own lawyer and write up a specific patent application for what you really did invent. Sign that over to your former employers. You will have
fulfilled you obligations to them.
No his reasoning isn't sound, because he has unstated assumptions.
"But what they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong, and it demonstrates that what they are interested in is not free speech at all but getting stuff without paying for it."
The unstated assumption here is that the laws protecting intellectual property are morally correct, and that it is therefore immoral to break them.
As a professional IT consultant working for one of the Big 5 consultancy firms, I've been working recently on an indepth report
on the weaknesses of "open source" software for one of our clients, a company that is mentioned here on occasion.
i.e. He/she works for a company that manufactures justifications for their clients.
I expect power-point presentations are involved.
It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy is that it implies that adherance to his
particular license is of more importance than the overal quality and value of a product. Most sources agree that KDE is the
superior choice of Linux desktop, yet according to open source proponents GNOME is the better choice simply because it is
licensed under the GNU Public License.
Definately it's superior if one hopes to enjoy the protections and privileges the GPL provides.
This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source. When Linux led the start of this movement I doubt Linus Torvalds say
the day when people would deliberately choose inferior software to please a man whose ivory tower ideals conflict with
real-world realism.
On the countrary, it was based on so called ivory tower ideals from the start; if it wansn't based on the principles of craftmanship and sharing openly then it would probably have gone the way of numerous other failed commercial projects in a Windows dominated world.
It's a success precicely because it's given away. So called real world considerations come into the picture when a structure to safegard those principles must be maintained.
Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather have the quality product rather than the alternatives...
Well, that's a flat out lie.
The corporate world is made up of millions of little managers who will generally try and take the safest option they can think of, and directed by a handful of exectives trying to control the whole paperchase from the centre. It's all very soviet really.
...even if they don't use
the GPL. And since the continued success of Linux relies on it gaining corporate mindshare, maybe it's time for a little more
productivity and a little less childishness.
Corporate mindshare, surely that's a contradiction in terms.
Linux wasn't built by corporations, and corporations didn't show an interest in it until it was already becoming successful. Now (as is usual practice for corporations), they'd like to buy it and feed off it's success. However, there isn't anybody to buy it off because it's a public movement, not a commercial project. Corporations (or rather executives) find this rather outside of their understanding, and commission professional sophists to provide them with justifications for their fear, uncertainty and doubt. We should all wear ties and act like unpaid employees, this would make them happy.
Right, I'm bored with taunting the poor droid now.
Hello? You're on Slashdot. What the hell did you expect to find here? Whining about finding an article about RMS just demonstrates that you're in the wrong place.
I'm sure we're all really impressed by you manifest manly hardness however. I see you managed to mention the phrases "ejaculate", "whore", "republican" and "Anal Penetration" all on one message. I'm sure there'll be more exciting homo-conservative imagry, after I've ceased paying attention. You're truely a legend in your own mind.
Come to think of it, why would anyone be interested in RMS at all when giants like yourself stride the ether. I'd better stand back before I'm crushed by the masses of former RMS groupies as they throng to your feet.
Seriously however, how does it feel to know that a fat, hairly, middle aged hacker is vastly more important than an anonymous piece of flame bait like yourself. Does it make you feel big to stand at the back of his audience and try and steal litle bits of reflected recognition?
Anybody here read "Ringworld" then?
on
Biotransistors
·
· Score: 1
The first thing that occurs to me is that all of this tech could be wiped out by a hostile microbe or virus; pretty much as happened to all the superconductors in Larry Niven's novel. It's vaguely cool, but I wouldn't want anything irreplacable to be running on it.
There seems to be a tendency towards this kind of non-robust tech, tech thats subject to various kinds of natural disasters. I'm predicting that a number of companies that rely heavily on wireless communications will crash and burn the next time we get a significant solar storm.
Individualism is one of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century, not because people have it, but because they think they have it and they don't. Girls do what girls do, because that's what girls do; the ones who don't are social deviants.
Why don't you try a few of these experiments
Watch any group of people make up their collective minds about something
Look at any social group of teenagers, sports fans, small children, suburbanites, geeks. Observe how they are dressed, how they act, how they live in general, and note the similarities (90% of the students in my 2nd year computer science classes had long hair/beards and played hacky-sack)
Watch some childrens' TV; cartoons are good, the crappy cartoons especially. Look at the adverts for toys, and the children portrayed using them.
Take a look at the "girls' toys" in a toy store.
Monkey see, monkey do...
There are more experiments that you can dream up and try if you're really in an empirical frame of mind, but my guess is that most people won't try them. Most moderately educated people get their wisdom out of books, and so follow the opinions of some philosopher or sociologist without coming to their own conclusions about how the world works. These authors in turn are generally following some sort of trend or ideal, and maybe applying it to a new situation when they write.
Anyway, individualism isn't nearly as common as people (especially people in the supposedly individualism worshipping US of A) belive or portray in their media. People make the same kind of individualistic choices. Test the hypothesis for yourself.
When was the last time you indulged in a spontaneous act of free will anyway? Something a bit more than the indulgence of a pre-programmed preference?
The power supply and cpu cooling systems are usually the main problem with respect to noise. The fans themselves, and the necessary openings for airflow are what makes the computer noisy.
You could make a much quieter computer if you sealed the case and instead used peltier plates, heat pumps and heat sinks. This method is just more expensive than using cooling fans, which I expect is why off-the-shelf computers aren't made like this already.
This article isn't really about the ethics of free software, it's about the ethics of commercial software and the ethics of free software programmers.
That said this article is overly turgid, and devotes a fair amount of space to the tired old "you're stealing paper clips from the company" viewpoint. It tends to downplay the value of non-commercial activities in the sphere of human endevour and reduce matters to base currency. I'd like to think that most of the things that make me a worthwile human being (or rat) occur when I'm not making money. It's packed full of straw men besides (like a particular free software advocate's opinions on gun ownership); he devotes a fair bit of space to this sort of criticism which he himself earlier calls foul on.
His inclusion of property rights amonst the paramount human rights is interesting, and I think he's commiting the sin of cultural relativism he's warning about; introducing a principle which is primary intended to support his arguments. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a Iain M Banks style world without personal property, if it ment that I could have practically any material thing I wanted. I like the idea that I might one day live in a world where this is at least true of software.
Anyway to take issue with two other points: "For all that, it is easy to miss the incredible contributions of Microsoft--and its defacto partner, Intel--to the just as incredible progress of the computer industry. By establishing a mass market that enabled staggering price reductions, 'Wintel' has made the computer revolution possible."
There were other PCs before the "IBM-PC" became the dominant type; Acorn, Amiga, Archemedies, BBC, Mac (just off the top of my head). I think at least a couple of them were superior to the PCs of their day. I'd like to think if it weren't for "Wintel" we'd have better machines today; quite frankly PCs are full of hardware bottlenecks compared to some of those more "distributed" architectures.
The story goes on to state that Stallman "resigned"-- presumably meaning that he stopped using the MIT's machines, since it appears from the above that he had already resigned --- because "sometimes, universities take software written by their employees to sell them as proprietary products". (What a shame indeed: that a university would think it has any rights at all on products developed by people it pays, on machines that it owns!)
Indeed what. Would he think it unreasonable that a mathematician publish their work? An economist? A historian? He seems to think it unreasonable that computer scientist would want to publish his.
In short (one more time) this article is about commerce, and takes little notice of issues like academic freedom, art, science or the field of human knowledge; matters which should be included in any proper discussion of ethics.
I believe the topic was something to do with a lawsuit against id software (over a shooting) being dismissed? Everybody cheers.
Bear in mind however, that imitation is the primary human method of learning. It's how you learn to hold a cigarette, kiss, write (or type), fire an handgun (if you get around to it), drive (and so the list goes on).
This also applies to social behaviour; we learn it from the world. That world also includes TV and computers; which may be more real (or at least important) to some people than the world of their school, job or corner store.
All freedoms have their price, and this doesn't just include trite remarks about the blood of patriots; you have to include the odd postal-kiddie on the cheque. That kiddie didn't just appear, they needed a lot of things to go postal; motivation, training and weapons.
I'm not a idealist, so I don't have a carved-in- stone answer, however it strikes me that freedoms and consequences are linked and people only want to look at one or the other. Accept that those good old blood and guts games have a price and accept the price you pay for freedom.
Silicon Rat
PS: Knives? Axes are more lethal, if you don't have a gun.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the French government has been placing human genome data in the public domain. I don't have any references for this however. Any french people care to comment?
Our calendar actually started as a decimal calendar, before the Julius Caeser added some new months named after himself and Augustus. This link explains the original roman calendar. If you look at the names of the latter months (December for example) you can see that they are named according to the original latin numbering system.
Julius Caeser's changes gave us the 12 month calendar, Pope Gregory's (13th) reforms gave us leap years. Interestingly, Augustus Caeser later stole a day from February to make his month more impressive than Julius's (July).
KirTakat writes: "We see lots of links to information about MP3s in America (by this I mean most English speaking countries...
(not allowed to use obcenities am I)
Drat you Yank, drat you to heck. You can take your "English speaking world equals America" attitude and perform a painful and possibly imposible physical act with it. I hope the EU tips all your filthy bananas into the ocean. I hope that Texis suceeds from the Union. I hope that the Canadians invade and burn your capital to the ground again. I hope you get Bill Gates as your next president. I hope that the hormones and genetic agents in your argricultural and horticultural products make you all grow inappropriate sexual characteristics. [expletive which refers to archaic term for sharpening a scythe].
And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
The can opener is just a modern convenience when it comes to opening cans. Originally, they were opened with chisels, or sometime bayonettes.
Why would anybody invent a specialised can-opening device before there were cans to open?
That's a good point; perjury is against the law, and no contract can compel you to break the law.
You've agreed to sign over the rights to what you invented while working for your former employers, but there's no reason you have to let them write the patent application. Get your own lawyer and write up a specific patent application for what you really did invent. Sign that over to your former employers. You will have fulfilled you obligations to them.
No his reasoning isn't sound, because he has unstated assumptions.
"But what they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong, and it demonstrates that what they are interested in is not free speech at all but getting stuff without paying for it."
The unstated assumption here is that the laws protecting intellectual property are morally correct, and that it is therefore immoral to break them.
As a professional IT consultant working for one of the Big 5 consultancy firms, I've been working recently on an indepth report on the weaknesses of "open source" software for one of our clients, a company that is mentioned here on occasion.
i.e. He/she works for a company that manufactures justifications for their clients. I expect power-point presentations are involved.
It seems to me that a fundamental flaw of Mr. Stallman's open source philosophy is that it implies that adherance to his particular license is of more importance than the overal quality and value of a product. Most sources agree that KDE is the superior choice of Linux desktop, yet according to open source proponents GNOME is the better choice simply because it is licensed under the GNU Public License.
Definately it's superior if one hopes to enjoy the protections and privileges the GPL provides.
This is a major flaw in the reasoning behind open source. When Linux led the start of this movement I doubt Linus Torvalds say the day when people would deliberately choose inferior software to please a man whose ivory tower ideals conflict with real-world realism.
On the countrary, it was based on so called ivory tower ideals from the start; if it wansn't based on the principles of craftmanship and sharing openly then it would probably have gone the way of numerous other failed commercial projects in a Windows dominated world.
It's a success precicely because it's given away. So called real world considerations come into the picture when a structure to safegard those principles must be maintained.
Let me tell you, the corporate world would rather have the quality product rather than the alternatives...
Well, that's a flat out lie.
The corporate world is made up of millions of little managers who will generally try and take the safest option they can think of, and directed by a handful of exectives trying to control the whole paperchase from the centre. It's all very soviet really.
Corporate mindshare, surely that's a contradiction in terms.
Linux wasn't built by corporations, and corporations didn't show an interest in it until it was already becoming successful. Now (as is usual practice for corporations), they'd like to buy it and feed off it's success. However, there isn't anybody to buy it off because it's a public movement, not a commercial project. Corporations (or rather executives) find this rather outside of their understanding, and commission professional sophists to provide them with justifications for their fear, uncertainty and doubt. We should all wear ties and act like unpaid employees, this would make them happy.
Right, I'm bored with taunting the poor droid now.
Hello? You're on Slashdot. What the hell did you expect to find here? Whining about finding an article about RMS just demonstrates that you're in the wrong place.
I'm sure we're all really impressed by you manifest manly hardness however. I see you managed to mention the phrases "ejaculate", "whore", "republican" and "Anal Penetration" all on one message. I'm sure there'll be more exciting homo-conservative imagry, after I've ceased paying attention. You're truely a legend in your own mind.
Come to think of it, why would anyone be interested in RMS at all when giants like yourself stride the ether. I'd better stand back before I'm crushed by the masses of former RMS groupies as they throng to your feet.
Seriously however, how does it feel to know that a fat, hairly, middle aged hacker is vastly more important than an anonymous piece of flame bait like yourself. Does it make you feel big to stand at the back of his audience and try and steal litle bits of reflected recognition?
The first thing that occurs to me is that all of this tech could be wiped out by a hostile microbe or virus; pretty much as happened to all the superconductors in Larry Niven's novel. It's vaguely cool, but I wouldn't want anything irreplacable to be running on it.
There seems to be a tendency towards this kind of non-robust tech, tech thats subject to various kinds of natural disasters. I'm predicting that a number of companies that rely heavily on wireless communications will crash and burn the next time we get a significant solar storm.
Bother me? No, outside the US, we only have to worry about Echelon.
What a steaming pile of wishful thinking.
Individualism is one of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century, not because people have it, but because they think they have it and they don't. Girls do what girls do, because that's what girls do; the ones who don't are social deviants.
Why don't you try a few of these experiments
Monkey see, monkey do...
There are more experiments that you can dream up and try if you're really in an empirical frame of mind, but my guess is that most people won't try them. Most moderately educated people get their wisdom out of books, and so follow the opinions of some philosopher or sociologist without coming to their own conclusions about how the world works. These authors in turn are generally following some sort of trend or ideal, and maybe applying it to a new situation when they write.
Anyway, individualism isn't nearly as common as people (especially people in the supposedly individualism worshipping US of A) belive or portray in their media. People make the same kind of individualistic choices. Test the hypothesis for yourself.
When was the last time you indulged in a spontaneous act of free will anyway? Something a bit more than the indulgence of a pre-programmed preference?
...like for example, tipping a shipload of tea into the harbour?
The power supply and cpu cooling systems are usually the main problem with respect to noise. The fans themselves, and the necessary openings for airflow are what makes the computer noisy.
You could make a much quieter computer if you sealed the case and instead used peltier plates, heat pumps and heat sinks. This method is just more expensive than using cooling fans, which I expect is why off-the-shelf computers aren't made like this already.
This article isn't really about the ethics of free software, it's about the ethics of commercial software and the ethics of free software programmers.
That said this article is overly turgid, and devotes a fair amount of space to the tired old "you're stealing paper clips from the company" viewpoint. It tends to downplay the value of non-commercial activities in the sphere of human endevour and reduce matters to base currency. I'd like to think that most of the things that make me a worthwile human being (or rat) occur when I'm not making money. It's packed full of straw men besides (like a particular free software advocate's opinions on gun ownership); he devotes a fair bit of space to this sort of criticism which he himself earlier calls foul on.
His inclusion of property rights amonst the paramount human rights is interesting, and I think he's commiting the sin of cultural relativism he's warning about; introducing a principle which is primary intended to support his arguments. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a Iain M Banks style world without personal property, if it ment that I could have practically any material thing I wanted. I like the idea that I might one day live in a world where this is at least true of software.
Anyway to take issue with two other points:
"For all that, it is easy to miss the incredible contributions of Microsoft--and its defacto partner, Intel--to the just as incredible progress of the computer industry. By establishing a mass market that enabled staggering price reductions, 'Wintel' has made the computer revolution possible."
There were other PCs before the "IBM-PC" became the dominant type; Acorn, Amiga, Archemedies, BBC, Mac (just off the top of my head). I think at least a couple of them were superior to the PCs of their day. I'd like to think if it weren't for "Wintel" we'd have better machines today; quite frankly PCs are full of hardware bottlenecks compared to some of those more "distributed" architectures.
The story goes on to state that Stallman "resigned"-- presumably meaning that he stopped using the MIT's machines, since it appears from the above that he had already resigned --- because "sometimes, universities take software written by their employees to sell them as proprietary products". (What a shame indeed: that a university would think it has any rights at all on products developed by people it pays, on machines that it owns!)
Indeed what. Would he think it unreasonable that a mathematician publish their work? An economist? A historian? He seems to think it unreasonable that computer scientist would want to publish his.
In short (one more time) this article is about commerce, and takes little notice of issues like academic freedom, art, science or the field of human knowledge; matters which should be included in any proper discussion of ethics.
If somebody were to accidentally-brutally table this as evidence in a court case, it would become a matter of public record Be a shame that.
I believe the topic was something to do with a lawsuit against id software (over a shooting) being dismissed? Everybody cheers.
Bear in mind however, that imitation is the primary human method of learning. It's how you learn to hold a cigarette, kiss, write (or type), fire an handgun (if you get around to it), drive (and so the list goes on).
This also applies to social behaviour; we learn it from the world. That world also includes TV and computers; which may be more real (or at least important) to some people than the world of their school, job or corner store.
All freedoms have their price, and this doesn't just include trite remarks about the blood of patriots; you have to include the odd postal-kiddie on the cheque. That kiddie didn't just appear, they needed a lot of things to go postal; motivation, training and weapons.
I'm not a idealist, so I don't have a carved-in- stone answer, however it strikes me that freedoms and consequences are linked and people only want to look at one or the other. Accept that those good old blood and guts games have a price and accept the price you pay for freedom.
Silicon Rat
PS: Knives? Axes are more lethal, if you don't have a gun.