PostgreSQL is quite heavily tested. Their regression test suite is...formidable.
gcc is, if I recall, has a regression test suite which grows by leaps and bounds with every release. Not sure what sort of coverage we're looking at right now.
perl 5.8 also has a large test suite, and 5.10 is looking to be insane in the testing department.
All of the core CPAN modules have at least rudimentary testing, most of them have quite heavy testing.
parrot loves it some testing as well.
OSDL wrote a test suite for the Linux kernel which is pretty hard-core, I've been told. Testing results for development kernels are posted regularly to LKML, I believe.
These are scattered projects (and they are not the only projects out there that test), but they reflect, in my opinion, a growing trend in open source: automated testing.
The reason for this is twofold, IMO.
Developers don't like fixing the same bug twice. If you write a test, you're unlikely to let that particular bug slip back in quietly (if you're good at writing tests, you can do a lot better than that in many cases). Also, automated testing + versioned source repository + automated tools = you know what patch broke what. That scratches a major itch.
Some developers are just wired that way, or are paid to be that way. So, when a project comes or is brought to their attention, they try to do automated testing.
As a possible argument against what I'm saying, I'll refer to your statement "no real testing of Open Source. No Test Plans, no Test Matrices of test cases"[1].
To that argument I would say: don't get so hung up on names that you miss the point.
[1] - I'm not saying you are making or would make this argument, just trying to think of possible responses and responses to those responses.
There is a lot of snake oil out there, yes. However, it is a mistake to conjoin the theory that something works with how something works.
Something can work for a reason other than the given one. Newton's laws work just fine in most circumstances, but his interpretation of how things worked was later revealed to be flawed.
But that doesn't mean they don't work.
One of the major problems with many people who have engineering degrees is that they forget that there are things that we can't explain yet, and that doesn't mean they're wrong[1].
So, having said that, one of the things to remember when reading Stereophile is that they are explicitly a "subjective review" magazine. After a review of the numbers over the years, they have decided that the numbers aren't good enough: the only thing that matters is how they sound.
And they tend to be very accurate.
Also, their experiments tend to be repeatable. They will often bring in another reviewer or 2 to verify what they have heard at the end of the year. The replication is not quite as good as a litmus test, but it far exceeds chance.
It might be a good experiment, in fact, to compare the replicability of a stereophile review with several scientific experiments. Hmmm....
Their technical editor (Robert Harley) wrote a book called The Complete Guide to High End Audio, and it's an excellent read that summarizes exactly how they think of things and why. It gives very good justification, in my opinion.
[1] - I cite emperical evidence for this based on my dealings with numerous engineers. As these observations have a low p-value, take them as you will.
Re:Yes, a cat's got my tongue, OK?
on
Can You Raed Tihs?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually, does this work well with letter pairs like, "th ch wh sh qu?" I forget what those are called.
They're called dipthongs. There's also tripthongs, though I can't think of any English ones right now.
And no, they don't appear to work quite as well. I had trouble reading a few words that had split dipthongs.
Quite a bit of Debian depends upon a text editor. Emacs was probably just what you chose to install. If you were to put even nvi on there, you could remove everything else.
Where I work there are some people who are getting their old Macs replaced (old, old Macs. They have to really stretch to run 8.6, 9 is just baaaarely workable). They want Windows machines. Why?
This is the crazy part. They go and talk with one of the other secretaries and see their computer, and golly gee it has such neat things and is so fast. They certainly don't want another Mac, since "they're so slow" and all.
The IT guy for that and a few other labs is buying a few iMacs to loan people for a little while, to see what they think. He's overworked as it is dealing with Windows computers, and doesn't fancy adding a few more to the fray.
My lab, on the other hand, is run by a Mac-using PI and has a few Mac-using people. I've been asked by PC users a few times about rigging up one of our older Macs so that that they can use it for a little while --- to see if they want to go over permanently.
It's funny. One of our nurses used a PC for years. Has always hated it, and has usually not even named them (how sad) except to provide expletives in its direction.
She got a Mac laptop for her remote work, and within two weeks she ordered internet service for home and uses the thing all the time. Loves it.
I'm lucky, though, I work in a place where they believe in using the right tool for the job. I also work in a place where all the labs are independent and have to secure their own funding and survive on their own --- scientific failure[1] results in a long, slow, moneyless death.
Funny, that most of the PIs tend to let people use whatever they want that will make them happy and let them get their work done, rather than obsessing over "unification" and pissing contests.
[1] - Scientific failure meaning not publishing or continuous, uneventful retread of old material. Failed experiments are normal.
My understanding is that with private industry you don't tell them how to run their business ("no contractors" etc), you just allow (or even encourage) competition. If contractors aren't "doing it" for you --- ie your service is suffering --- you switch.
It sounds like, check me on this, that the system is "managed" by a private company that has no competition. That would be privatization, as you said. That does suck, yes, as it's really more like fascism...without even the advantages. I was hoping for something more like a competitive marketplace.
rather than having two different contractors, both with a profit motive for not solving the problem, you would have had basically lazy government employees that would have had it in their best interest to solve the source of the problem
That's the difference between having private maintenance contracts per issue rather than an SLA. Sounds like the city got taken for a sucker.
I'd be interested to know what you think would've happened if they had a maintenance contract with a service level agreement, and the possibility to hire another group if this one didn't work out (and teeth to the contract so that if the SLA isn't met, no/little money is paid).
There's not much difference between government workers and contract workers when they're both given a cushy exclusive contract in their favor.
That would make sense, if you don't compare what they saved (in running lean) vs. what they lose (in one blackout).
Consider what would happen if people had a choice of power providers. I don't mean selecting your generator, I mean selecting your generator-to-outlet providor. Right now, there is only one of those.
If people had a choice, however, between the company they're currently blacked out with, and the company that's running just-fine-thanks, do you think that they would switch? Perhaps in droves?
The worst thing for a business is not to lose face, it's to lose face when you have a competitor. That's the problem with many of these "deregulation" schemes.
Some of these other posts regarding the fact that politicians are just throwing "deregulation" in the face of every problem are correct: it's foolish. You can't just invoke the magic word and have everything go well.
Instead, the politicians come up with this system where the "little guy" can compete with the "big guy" by using the big guy's own power system. Surprise, that doesn't work.
As a question to see what people think: what do you think would happen if the power company for a city was restricted to generating, and the power distribution structure was auctioned off piece by piece to third parties. Also, waive right-of-way restrictions to allow other distribution companies to come in. Remember, we still have a regulated generating company. The generating company then decides what distributor gets what contract for what area, and whether another gets a backup contract.
Not suggesting this as an idea, it's just a thought experiment. What would happen?
There's a ton of problems actually converting to a deregulated (TRUE deregulated) system.
It's not really a competitive market if there's only one company or if all the companies are required to use each other's services in order to compete with each other.
The problem with conservation is that it depends upon a non-monetarized cost that is perceived unequally amongst those in the market.
We have the same problem trying to keep people from buying child-labor produced products.
There is an alternative, however: ensure that the cost to produce the electricity is reflected in the cost of the power provided. There are several ways to do this, we'll get to that.
When electricity costs what it really costs, people will naturally conserve. They will probably not stop using as much stuff (unless there is a severe lack of power, like food rationing during a war), but companies will produce more power-efficient devices.
Remember Moore's law? Well, it is usually expressed as 2x performance every 18 months. It could also be.5x power every 18 months.
Why don't we do that? No real demand. I bet there would be a demand if it started costing a whole bunch.
One more thing: if electricity costs what it really costs, and people don't have a problem paying that amount, then there is no need for conservation. We're okay. If that is the case, then you will primarily see the competition being amongst power companies to provide electricity at a lower cost.
Okay, so how to make electricity cost what it really costs? First of all, make sure that electricity costs are assessed per meter box, and that no costs are fobbed off onto indirect billing (government, etc).
No price caps.
No exclusive contracts with a city for a power company.
Power companies pay for their own equipment (again with the "no indirect billing" thing).
Power companies are taxed based on the expected environmental cost of the plant. This is tricky, but you can measure it in how much it reduces property value. Further, if the plant requires an "exclusive zone" around it, the plant has to actually purchase that land. No freebies.
These are just a few ideas, but you can see where I'm going with it. In order to get people to conserve, you have to allow them to make a fully informed decision, and have billing reflect reality. Further, do not bill people for things that aren't real or they don't want. If you bullshit them, they'll get mad and take matters into their own hands with the ballot.
Reading about the lubrication requirements of cross-cut and high-security shredders gave me a good laugh. I just have this awful image of North sneaking off to the shredder room with some documents under one arm and a can of lube in the other.
In an effort to maintain control of the school (or sometimes just to "cut costs"), our administrators would ban things. I'm sure I'm not alone (heck, I know for a fact ~4,000 other kids were in with me) on this, and I wonder what it will be like when there is Total Surveilance.
Just a small list of the things that were banned. I'm sure you can think of reasons for all of these.
Large backpacks
Cell phones/pagers
Pocketknives
The color light blue (gang sign)
Public displays of affection (including, but not limited to: kissing, hugging, holding hands, etc, etc etc)
The color dark red (gang sign)
Anything that made a reference to drugs or alcohol.
Most of that isn't too bad. Besides, most of the ill effects were mitigated by the fact that administrators couldn't be everywhere all the time.
But you know, in spite of draconian laws regarding fighting ("do not fight back, it will be interpreted as fighting and you will be expelled as well."), they didn't help at all with my friend James getting the shit kicked out of him in the boys' locker room. Repeatedly.
Oh, and by the way, there were cameras in my high school. They were only there for investigation of destruction of school property. That's it.
I worry for other people. I worry that if the cameras are everywhere and used for private wars (I have spoken to many mid-level administrators in high schools and they do have a war mentality), or whether they will be transparent and open to everyone and then used to enforce social norms.
School is not society, I know. But high school is a time that we learn to question, and when we truly learn to fend for ourselves. I remember walking through the rabbit warrens of my high school ("maze of twisty passages, all alike" is a good descriptor), and I remember there being halls where it was just us kids. Hundreds moving quickly and talking amongst each other, and I remember that no one saw anything.
So, the question is whether we're going to enable the beaurocrats who just want to keep the peace and make sure everything goes smoothly[1], or whether we're going to teach these kids that you have to rely upon yourself in the short term.
High school kids aren't animals. They're smart, and they're wiley. And many of them are just crazy mean --- their lack of recognition of their own mortality makes it impossible for them to understand empathy. Make something verboten, and they'll use it persecute their enemies. Most people forget that blackmail is not all that uncommon in high school, amongst the right crowd. Sure, it's penny ante and it's short term, but it's there.
So ask yourself: would things be any better if we could see everything?
Sounds to me like you're arming savages with dynamite, and I'm not sure any of them are thinking clearly enough to recognize the short fuse when they see it.
[1] - All of those weird rules were made because they indicated something that might cause problems, and it's easy to nail someone for a technical violation rather than an act. "Did you steal that book?" "No, and you can't prove I did." "True. But you're wearing baggy pants and a blue t-shirt. Have fun in detention for a week." Is it right? It's not really concerned with right and wrong. It's concerned with keeping the peace.
Deficit spending in and of itself doesn't increase the money supply (in the long term), as bonds issued to pay for the debt in the usual case.
True, bonds increase the money supply in the short term. They are competition for private investment, however, which is another bad thing, and is quite explicitly "borrowing against your economy" as investment is one of the things that fuels the economy.
As for the tax cuts...I'd like to think that congress would've started buying back some of the debt, but I remember the talk of hugely expanded spending when the budget "surplus"[1] was announced.
The problem is, since most people either a) have no problem with defecit spending, or b) (more commonly) don't care, there is no reward to politicians to pay off the debt. In fact, as it is a very nice and very subtle way to tarpit your economy, it might even be seen as a good way to keep a recession going so as to hurt your political opponent in office (remember: presidents are held accountable to the economy, not congress). Not saying that's happening now, but I am saying it's probably crossed a few politicians' minds over the years.
But at the same time, there are serious hazards to preventing the government from defecit spending, and there are more important subjects to attend to. Besides, ever since congress discovered that the best way to stay elected is to have a bunch of nice cushy government contracts go to your district, we've been selecting politicians that will do it more and more often. Rather than get in the way of them doing what we want them to do, we could just stop rewarding them for doing it. Just something to think about.
[1] - speaking of which, I really wish that when I didn't spend as much one year as the next (regardless of what I make), it was referred to as a "surplus" and was a sign that I could go out and spend a bunch of money. Yes, I know, it's a *budget* surplus, but....
Oh, and it's caused a new episode of showing how fucked both our expectations are and our reality is: the hullabaloo over ATM fees.
For those not familiar with the full issue: a company puts out an ATM machine and charges a fee to withdraw money from it. Some machines charge as much as $10 to withdraw $100.
This got some people so hopping mad that, in some localities, they decided what a far fee would be, and mandated that the companies could only charge that.
In response to that, most of the banks shut down access to ATMs from non-bank customers, and many of the private companies folded or cut down the number of ATMs available. There's talk of forcing banks to allow non-customers to use their system, etc. etc..
In short: people's expectations are fucked, because they expect some things to be provided for free, and they've discovered they can legislate it to be for free. And they're shocked when they get the bill for what they did.
On the other hand, I've heard that because of some legal situations, only a few establishments were permitted to run those ATMs, and there was some hanky-panky that closely resembeled collusion amongst the ATM companies and/or the locales that allowed the ATMs[1], that was pretty much enabled by the government (if you have enough competitors, it's pretty hard to have a "gentleman's agreement" amongst ATM providers).
Anyone have more info regarding this?
[1] - I heard that there were some situations where, say, a mall (which is only supposed to rent places out and maintain the facilities, not decided who lives and who dies) would make a deal only allowing one ATM company in, in exchange for a very nice rent. Then again, even that would seem to be within their rights.... I mean, everybody knows not to buy food at a theme park if you can avoid it. The same would become true of the mall and the ATM machines.
Unbacked systems (rather, systems backed with the "full faith and credit" of the issuer) have some very positive aspects.
They can also have some very negative aspects.
There are 3 types of taxes: taxes on trade, taxes on holdings, and taxes on the money supply. The third is very, very dangerous in a system where politicans are at least theoretically accountable to the people, as a tax on the money supply is a subtle death.
Taxes on the money supply are usually levied by increasing the money supply. In its most egregious form, this is called "defecit spending" but it's not the only form. Altering rules of the FED is another way (and there's plenty of tricks that can be played there, but most of those do not involve porkbarrel politics).
An interesting suggestion that some countries have followed (though sometimes for short periods of time) is to have an external entity control the money supply. This ranges from a banking board (the Albanian dollar{?} is done this way, and has shown remarkable stability recently, I'm told), to having government only be able to spend in foreign currency --- which is a very odd way of doing things, but it basically amounts to this: since you can't print your own Pounds without Britain getting somewhat upset, you have to buy pounds with dollars. This has the drawback, however, of if the government decides to go on printing money to buy Pounds (or, even worse, decides to set its own exchange rate and use theoretical pounds), things can go really crappy, really quick.
The thing to remember is that taxing your money supply is much like borrowing against your economy.
Of course, there are those who say that deficit spending is not a big deal. I've heard arguments ranging from "it has no effect" to "you can't show an effect" to "private sector expansion (bank loans and such) has a far greater impact than government does".
I don't have any hard data, and I'm not enough of an expert to be able to interpret it well anyways.
And don't expect to get a straight answer out of anyone: you're dealing with some severe belief systems here.
Oh, and so as to introduce a bit more current events, you might be interested to know that the monetary policy over in Iraq right now is truly fucked. Cato has been issuing reports on what's going on, and whether or not you're a Monetarist or Keynesian, things are not looking good.
One of the problems is that with open source, the user is usually motivated to solve the problem or has someone around who is motivated. Most consumer product complaints basically involve people who want to scream at you until you "fix it."
I think part of the problem is that there aren't well-known and trusted "computer mechanics."
This is partially caused by the "my son the computer whiz" syndrome, where people know some kid that seems to be good at computers, and they get him to fix their computer. Sometimes (often, in fact), the kid can fix the problem, and that's great. But it means that people are loathe to go or flat out don't know where to go to get their problem fixed.
I think open source can help with a lot of this, as it's possible for a small shop to be able to fix just about any problem that comes up with a computer that uses OS software. Not likely, but possible. But they in turn are likely to know whom to call to get the problem fixed. Or maybe this is just because most OS problems stem from misconfiguration and other simple things because the level of skill required to do basic administration on a *nix is much higher.
Anyways, back to your subject: I find the most important thing with tech support is a well-organized and accessible database of past problems and solutions. Many companies are flat-out embarassed to admit they have problems with their software, and thus will not make their bug database available. Perhaps there's a legal liability issue here that I'm not aware of, but I'd hate to think such could be truly fixed by lying to people.
Having your bug database (even if it's just the closed bugs) available makes it far easier for a semi-experienced person to fix issues as they come up. If you have a good taxonomical system in place as well, then it becomes of use to even more people.
Another aspect is the software writing itself. I'm working on a mid-sized project right now, and most of my work is going towards: prevent the problem, and produce logging and error reports that are sufficient to narrow down not just this problem, but related problems in the future.
One of the funny aspects of this is in user interface. Often times a user says "this didn't do what I expected it to do," or the even more classic "I don't know if it worked or not, and I can't really tell if anything's wrong." The latter is a sure sign of a poor interface. The former is a sign of poor documentation.
And that's another thing: most people don't read documentation because it isn't written properly. There are basically two types of documentation: tutorial and reference. I've seen some good tutoreferences, but they are few and far between (and not usually as good as the two in pair).
The best man pages I have seen have a tutorial (sometimes as simple as examples) in one section, and a reference in another section.
I have noticed that if you have a very good tutorial, a very good reference, an accessible bug database, and a good troubleshooter, you do get the "I didn't read the documentation, but that won't keep me from shouting" problems every once in a while, but most of those people, once the very good resources are shown to them, become different people entirely.
Though this may only be true for a major tool. Minor stuff may always get the shouting[1].
[1] - In this case, you need to remember that you are writing a minor tool. If what it does is simple, keep it simple. If what it does is complex, make sure people understand it's complex. Good examples: (if you understand regexps) grep is simple, cat is simple. find is complex (for a simple tool).
And "fair use" is largely determined by what doesn't trespass into either "for profit", or degradation of value
Important to note here that "fair use" is related to "for profit" and "degredation of value" not in a "it can't be for profit and it also cannot degrade the value" way. I'm not sure what the exact relation is, but it's not that.
I'm going to run into trouble here, because I'm also not sure what qualifies "degradation of value." It's a tough one.
Consider: it is perfectly legal to perform a copyrighted play or show a copyrighted movie and charge to reimburse the costs of putting on the show without the prior permission of the copyright holder. It's spelled out right in the copyright law, and it's held up in case law.
Now, of course, this is not "for profit" but according to currently bandied about definitions of dilution of value, this is a big one: you have shown a movie, and all of the people who saw it could have instead bought it, or seen it at a movie house where they would charge and pay royalties.
Of course, the difference is that in file sharing you're giving out copies.
But with internet radio, you're no more giving out copies than a radio station is, and the ruling right now is that internet radio is not a public performance, it is transcription, therefore there is no fair use non-profit exclusion and the royalty rates are higher than for a radio station.
I think the thing that needs to be clarified is what is "dilution of value"? I used to know, but now I'm being told it's something else. That it's everything I do with copyrighted material in which I am not paying the copyright holder.
It's beginning to piss me off, actually. And some of the shenanigans with copyright holders insisting that you need to pay for many things that qualify as fair use makes me think "fraud."
Sorry, I'm just a bit pissy today.
Regardless, we need to discover or rediscover a good rule or at least precept for what "dilution of value" is. Other wise either everything is, or nothing is, and neither of those sound right[1].
[1] - I've heard some claims that playing a competing publisher's music along with yours is diluting the value of your work in aggregate, which is part of how copyright is licensed these days. That's a bit far out, if you ask me.
Well, it's not an all-or-nothing thing. For instance, I wouldn't argue that quoting a book in a journal article would be a violation of copyright, and indeed we call that fair use.
So, if copyright is not an all-consuming power, would it be reasonable to say that said file trading might be a fair use?
If your trading is not commercially motivated, this becomes a viable argument, if not under the pre-DMCA copyright law[1], then perhaps as a motivator for change.
One of the big reasons for this is that it's understood that copyrighted material does naturally flow into our daily lives, and it is reasonable for us to interact with and through it. Copyright was not meant to be a tollbooth.
This "not for commercial use" means a lot more than most people give it credit for: most money made by artists (or, in these days, the company that owns the artist) is made via commercial ventures (well how about that, captain obvious?).
seriously, prime profit-making enterprises:
Sales of media on which the work is contained
Use of the work in another work for commercial gain (theme song for a television show, etc)
Commercial performance of work (theatrical production, wedding band, etc)
Commercial broadcast of work
To do anything that would truly cause harm to the copyright holder, you'd have to trespass into the "for-profit" area[2].
Of course, there is the argument that as iPods and such things become more and more common, that the need for the physical media will grow less and less, and when that happens the non-commercial file trading will replace the commercial selling of music. Dunno how to answer that, really, as the jury still seems to be out on that.
[1] - IIRC, it IS a viable argument under the pre-DMCA copyright law. Again, it has to not be for commercial gain.
[2] - I mention this not to justify file trading so much as to show that the commercial clause really is quite effective.
Three things mar what would be an otherwise great justification of the practice here.
Errrm...but I really wasn't trying to justify it, just set up portions of a discussion. Either way, looks like someone does want to have the discussion, so maybe we can clear some things up.
there is a difference between distributing materials on the street[...see above post for rest...]
That does tend to block off the "moral crusader" route, which is probably the route you should take if you want to see the law repealed.
Perhaps, though, the distribution on the street and the distribution at the computer methods do differ.
Thinking this through: what is it about the computer that makes it to where people feel free about distributing files? It's not anonymity for the most part, as many traders set up nicknames or handles for themselves, establishing pseudonymity. Often they tend to like talking to one another and talking about what they like and don't like, and what's cool and what's not. ShareReactor is a good example of that. Most of the hugely successful communities either offer 1) incredible selection, or 2) a chatting community that leads people to "cool stuff."
Most tend to succeed at the latter, if they succeed at all. Note that this does not have to be intrinsic to the network, it can grow up around the network (BitTorrent, for example).
Well, you can get that from doing it on the street, too.
On the other hand, what's the likelyhood of you just plopping your butt down on the sidewalk and finding some psychadelic trance fans who have some nice tracks that they want you to check out for no reason at all but because they're cool.
Pretty low, unless you're at a trance convention, and then you're likely to run into marketroids and others who try to work the marketing system.
Also, on the street unless everyone has laptops or something along those lines and headphones and a way to connect, people aren't going to be able to listen as they trade and chat. LAN parties tend to be that way, but they aren't the sidewalk.
Come to think of it, LAN parties are very, very much like the P2P systems in some respects: lots of files swapped across, lots of stuff shown, listening while you trade, going off and doing other stuff, etc.
Most likely on the street you're going to have to give people tapes or CDs, and then you look like a radio station or a promoter.
So maybe there is something different between the examples. One is what the community is, and one is purely a protest, and probably wouldn't win any sympathies.
Maybe we should advertise the fact that at our next LAN party we will have files available to trade? Even that doesn't sound like the community. Hmmm...can you think of a way to do what the community is like and also have it be very public and "moral crusade"?
When in the culture of file trading, it often becomes very difficult to say that it's wrong. Most of the time, it's not people in dark trenchcoats saying "I got what'chu need, ese", it's more of "check this shit out, man! You liked that track by Infected Mushroom, right? Well, check out Trance Cowboy. Here's my collection, check a few of them out, they're righteous."
Has more in common with people sitting around with discmans and headphones swapping CDs.
But of course, they're not "swapping CDs" they are duplicating them. There isn't any burning need for them to buy the album so they can get that music. Maybe when we're in the culture it just *seems* right without *being* right.
Just something to consider. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
They explicitly stated the reasons: in order to promote further development and creativity.
But at the same time, most don't feel that that is the case, nor do they feel that the justification fits the extension. That means that the "justification" is a bit shaky, if not wrong.
Example: you and I are friends, and we both love The Simpsons. I
The reality is that so far I haven't seen a very convincing defense of music piracy.
I'm not going to take a stab at this, but I'd like to hear what you think about a few points. Who knows, maybe it'll clear up the debate a little bit.
Let's say that distribution of pro-abortion material was deemed offensive in your district. Further, it was deemed obscene. Now let's say that people really do feel that way, and it's not just an attempt to squelch free speech.
If you were to distribute informational pamphlets that discussed abortion in a positive light, you would be committing an illegal act. Furthermore, you would be distributing (or attempting to distribute) these pamphlets to people who truly found them offensive.
Would you be right in doing it, even if it's illegal?
Sorry that I used "abortion" but I'm in the buckle of the bible belt, and we run into those questions down here.
How does this relate to "music piracy"? Because it serves to illustrate several assumptions:
That the onus is upon you to comply with restrictions of speech.
That restrictions can be made upon that speech just because people consider it to be "right." (or wrong)
The trick is how copyright works. Consider for a moment what copyright means. It is not property. It can be bought and sold, but it is not quite property. It is a government granted, sanctioned, and enforced monopoly granted for a limited time. It is literally taking out phrases, ideas, and images from our freedom of speech.
Is that wrong? Well, I'd be hard pressed to say that was wrong, because we do have the sense that someone who makes something owns it, whether draftsman or craftsman. But at the same time, for freedom of speech to exist we shouldn't have to worry so much about what we say.
Also, consider what freedom of speech is: it's a description of a lack of controls upon an interaction. Copyright is intrinsically an interaction between two people when its value is assessed.
A work of art can be enjoyed solely by its creator without copyright coming in to play, much as land can be enjoyed only by its owner without needing someone else to desire that land.
So, copyright is a restriction upon speech and a restriction upon interaction, and it is granted for a limited time.
If that is true --- that copyright is a restriction, not a restriction in the sense of "two people cannot both own 100% of something" like land or material items, but a restriction in the sense that "I can own what you say" --- then perhaps the onus is not upon we the public to justify our use of something so much as it is upon the copyright holder to justify our lack of "permission" to use it.
Why do I mention this? You ask for a justification for "piracy." I think that's a bit turned around on its head.
When copyright was set out in America (note that I can only speak for America), most of the argument boiled down to "alright, we'll put up with this abomination, but only for a short while, and only if it benefits us" because copyright was not viewed as a "right."
Maybe it should be. I don't know. But regardless, if you're going to argue about the current copyright system, you need to consider upon whom the responsibility for justification is. Much of the law comes from discovering upon whom obligation for justification lies.
Most of the good arguments I've heard against music trading is that it dilutes the value of their property[1]. Does that hold up? Well, that's an argument for the statisticians.
These are just some things to consider. I'd like to hear anything you have to say concerning the subject. Please note that I am not "for" music piracy. Not really sure how I feel about it. I just would like to see a clearer discussion.
[1] - Please don't make the mistake of saying "it's bad because it's against the law." I've heard that a few times, and it's useless because when you're talking about right and wrong it makes little sense to discuss the factuality of the law. The premise behind the law, sure. But not the factuality.
Just curious, how is this different from a blacklist?
Blacklists are maintained by an authority, hence a hierarchial system. Web of trust (which this is based upon) can have a hierarchial system mapped on to it, but each user can act as its own blacklist/whitelist and share those properties either as a full weight or partial weight.
Essentially acts as the same thing...but not quite.
The idea would be that you could assign a special trust setting to either agencies or other admins that specifies that you trust them to make certain trust decisions for you (or, at least, that they'll weigh in on a trust decision).
The generating and spreading is not all that bad, and there is working art already (PGP keyservers).
"very rough" is a big overstatement. The tools are not polished, but they are far more than just usable.
But, yes. If I were going to convert a multi-million dollar project over to something, I'd be loathe to convert it to anything not "proven."
But at the same time you need to separate out the schema from the client: arch's schema is defined and stable. It is easily implemented. The client is very stable currently for the basic operations, and appears to be very stable for the more advanced operations[1].
But that is misleading terminology: if you only wanted to use arch right now to replace CVS + a little (ie introduce atomic commits, cheap branching, private repositories, and multi-file patches along with file renaming), it would be very stable.
So basically the starship does hit warp speed, but the replicators and holodeck still don't have a consistent interface.
Even so, it's probably better than your current dinghy.
[1] basic refers to basic editing and commiting. This hasn't changed in a long while. Advanced refers to things like star-merge (which merges previously mutually merged branches...no minor task), and email notification of changes. I say "appears to be" because that part of the client (and, yes, that's ALL client side) is relatively new and in flux.
The bottom line is that if we work to simply play follow-up, we'll ALWAYS be behind, and BK will ALWAYS be seen as the superior choice.
There is a better solution already out there. It's called arch, it's GPL'd, and it works great. We're using it on our software project already, and the only problems I've had with it relate to a shift in thought on my part away from CVS.
It's designed by Tom Lord, and he did a lot of thinking about it, and he has designed an incredible solution which you can download now.
A few of the advantages off the top of my head:
Easy distributed repositories
Commiting a patch to a repository is a create-only atomic operation, by which I mean it is in one step and you don't modify any old files. This means that if it fscks up in the middle of the patch you can just delete the new stuff and everything's fine. It's great.
All operations are file operations, there's no complicated locking database or anything else.
Repository actions on a remote server involve no computation by the remote server, only file operations.
Renaming files, adding and deleting files, changing permissions on files, blah, blah, blah.
A fully defined archive spec that has only changed in minor ways over the years, and it's very easy to implement. Most development on arch in the past year seems to have been non-repository related and more user-facing: better documentation, cleaner and more expressive commands, so on and so forth.
Easy ability to merge back and forth repeatedly and in both directions between branches.
Very easy to give public repository access: it's just files, so you can do it over http (just alias over to the directory), anonymous ftp, or scp if you want.
I have been extremely pleased with the system because of its simplicity yet power. In my mind that's the sign of the Right Solution. Arch is pretty much based upon an extension to diff and patch (to allow for file renaming and such things), tar, and touch.
If you want to check it out, there's a wiki at:
http://arch.fifthvision.net , and the latest releases of tla (the C version of arch that is being actively developed now that things have settled down to a final state) http://regexps.srparish.net/src/tla/ .
I suggestion you check it out and at least read over the documentation. It's different. The commands are a bit verbose, but I expect someone will write at least a wrapper pretty soon that allows you to be terse.
Slashdot Mirror
PostgreSQL is quite heavily tested. Their regression test suite is...formidable.
gcc is, if I recall, has a regression test suite which grows by leaps and bounds with every release. Not sure what sort of coverage we're looking at right now.
perl 5.8 also has a large test suite, and 5.10 is looking to be insane in the testing department.
All of the core CPAN modules have at least rudimentary testing, most of them have quite heavy testing.
parrot loves it some testing as well.
OSDL wrote a test suite for the Linux kernel which is pretty hard-core, I've been told. Testing results for development kernels are posted regularly to LKML, I believe.
These are scattered projects (and they are not the only projects out there that test), but they reflect, in my opinion, a growing trend in open source: automated testing.
The reason for this is twofold, IMO.
As a possible argument against what I'm saying, I'll refer to your statement "no real testing of Open Source. No Test Plans, no Test Matrices of test cases"[1].
To that argument I would say: don't get so hung up on names that you miss the point.
[1] - I'm not saying you are making or would make this argument, just trying to think of possible responses and responses to those responses.
There is a lot of snake oil out there, yes. However, it is a mistake to conjoin the theory that something works with how something works.
Something can work for a reason other than the given one. Newton's laws work just fine in most circumstances, but his interpretation of how things worked was later revealed to be flawed.
But that doesn't mean they don't work.
One of the major problems with many people who have engineering degrees is that they forget that there are things that we can't explain yet, and that doesn't mean they're wrong[1].
So, having said that, one of the things to remember when reading Stereophile is that they are explicitly a "subjective review" magazine. After a review of the numbers over the years, they have decided that the numbers aren't good enough: the only thing that matters is how they sound.
And they tend to be very accurate.
Also, their experiments tend to be repeatable. They will often bring in another reviewer or 2 to verify what they have heard at the end of the year. The replication is not quite as good as a litmus test, but it far exceeds chance.
It might be a good experiment, in fact, to compare the replicability of a stereophile review with several scientific experiments. Hmmm....
Their technical editor (Robert Harley) wrote a book called The Complete Guide to High End Audio, and it's an excellent read that summarizes exactly how they think of things and why. It gives very good justification, in my opinion.
[1] - I cite emperical evidence for this based on my dealings with numerous engineers. As these observations have a low p-value, take them as you will.
Actually, does this work well with letter pairs like, "th ch wh sh qu?" I forget what those are called.
They're called dipthongs. There's also tripthongs, though I can't think of any English ones right now.
And no, they don't appear to work quite as well. I had trouble reading a few words that had split dipthongs.
Split dipthongs? Sounds kinky.
Would you continue to use a particular phone book if it failed to supply you with accurate or consistent phone numbers?
If you didn't know the city and it was the only phone book in your hotel room, I bet you would.
Remember: what really ate Netscape's lunch was the fact that most people don't care enough to switch. Even if they're miserable.
half of debian seemed to depend on emacs.
Quite a bit of Debian depends upon a text editor. Emacs was probably just what you chose to install. If you were to put even nvi on there, you could remove everything else.
Where I work there are some people who are getting their old Macs replaced (old, old Macs. They have to really stretch to run 8.6, 9 is just baaaarely workable). They want Windows machines. Why?
This is the crazy part. They go and talk with one of the other secretaries and see their computer, and golly gee it has such neat things and is so fast. They certainly don't want another Mac, since "they're so slow" and all.
The IT guy for that and a few other labs is buying a few iMacs to loan people for a little while, to see what they think. He's overworked as it is dealing with Windows computers, and doesn't fancy adding a few more to the fray.
My lab, on the other hand, is run by a Mac-using PI and has a few Mac-using people. I've been asked by PC users a few times about rigging up one of our older Macs so that that they can use it for a little while --- to see if they want to go over permanently.
It's funny. One of our nurses used a PC for years. Has always hated it, and has usually not even named them (how sad) except to provide expletives in its direction.
She got a Mac laptop for her remote work, and within two weeks she ordered internet service for home and uses the thing all the time. Loves it.
I'm lucky, though, I work in a place where they believe in using the right tool for the job. I also work in a place where all the labs are independent and have to secure their own funding and survive on their own --- scientific failure[1] results in a long, slow, moneyless death.
Funny, that most of the PIs tend to let people use whatever they want that will make them happy and let them get their work done, rather than obsessing over "unification" and pissing contests.
[1] - Scientific failure meaning not publishing or continuous, uneventful retread of old material. Failed experiments are normal.
My understanding is that with private industry you don't tell them how to run their business ("no contractors" etc), you just allow (or even encourage) competition. If contractors aren't "doing it" for you --- ie your service is suffering --- you switch.
It sounds like, check me on this, that the system is "managed" by a private company that has no competition. That would be privatization, as you said. That does suck, yes, as it's really more like fascism...without even the advantages. I was hoping for something more like a competitive marketplace.
Is that how your system works?
rather than having two different contractors, both with a profit motive for not solving the problem, you would have had basically lazy government employees that would have had it in their best interest to solve the source of the problem
That's the difference between having private maintenance contracts per issue rather than an SLA. Sounds like the city got taken for a sucker.
I'd be interested to know what you think would've happened if they had a maintenance contract with a service level agreement, and the possibility to hire another group if this one didn't work out (and teeth to the contract so that if the SLA isn't met, no/little money is paid).
There's not much difference between government workers and contract workers when they're both given a cushy exclusive contract in their favor.
That would make sense, if you don't compare what they saved (in running lean) vs. what they lose (in one blackout).
Consider what would happen if people had a choice of power providers. I don't mean selecting your generator, I mean selecting your generator-to-outlet providor. Right now, there is only one of those.
If people had a choice, however, between the company they're currently blacked out with, and the company that's running just-fine-thanks, do you think that they would switch? Perhaps in droves?
The worst thing for a business is not to lose face, it's to lose face when you have a competitor. That's the problem with many of these "deregulation" schemes.
Some of these other posts regarding the fact that politicians are just throwing "deregulation" in the face of every problem are correct: it's foolish. You can't just invoke the magic word and have everything go well.
Instead, the politicians come up with this system where the "little guy" can compete with the "big guy" by using the big guy's own power system. Surprise, that doesn't work.
As a question to see what people think: what do you think would happen if the power company for a city was restricted to generating, and the power distribution structure was auctioned off piece by piece to third parties. Also, waive right-of-way restrictions to allow other distribution companies to come in. Remember, we still have a regulated generating company. The generating company then decides what distributor gets what contract for what area, and whether another gets a backup contract.
Not suggesting this as an idea, it's just a thought experiment. What would happen?
There's a ton of problems actually converting to a deregulated (TRUE deregulated) system.
It's not really a competitive market if there's only one company or if all the companies are required to use each other's services in order to compete with each other.
The problem with conservation is that it depends upon a non-monetarized cost that is perceived unequally amongst those in the market.
We have the same problem trying to keep people from buying child-labor produced products.
There is an alternative, however: ensure that the cost to produce the electricity is reflected in the cost of the power provided. There are several ways to do this, we'll get to that.
When electricity costs what it really costs, people will naturally conserve. They will probably not stop using as much stuff (unless there is a severe lack of power, like food rationing during a war), but companies will produce more power-efficient devices.
Remember Moore's law? Well, it is usually expressed as 2x performance every 18 months. It could also be .5x power every 18 months.
Why don't we do that? No real demand. I bet there would be a demand if it started costing a whole bunch.
One more thing: if electricity costs what it really costs, and people don't have a problem paying that amount, then there is no need for conservation. We're okay. If that is the case, then you will primarily see the competition being amongst power companies to provide electricity at a lower cost.
Okay, so how to make electricity cost what it really costs? First of all, make sure that electricity costs are assessed per meter box, and that no costs are fobbed off onto indirect billing (government, etc).
No price caps.
No exclusive contracts with a city for a power company.
Power companies pay for their own equipment (again with the "no indirect billing" thing).
Power companies are taxed based on the expected environmental cost of the plant. This is tricky, but you can measure it in how much it reduces property value. Further, if the plant requires an "exclusive zone" around it, the plant has to actually purchase that land. No freebies.
These are just a few ideas, but you can see where I'm going with it. In order to get people to conserve, you have to allow them to make a fully informed decision, and have billing reflect reality. Further, do not bill people for things that aren't real or they don't want. If you bullshit them, they'll get mad and take matters into their own hands with the ballot.
Reading about the lubrication requirements of cross-cut and high-security shredders gave me a good laugh. I just have this awful image of North sneaking off to the shredder room with some documents under one arm and a can of lube in the other.
There's a joke in there somewhere, I'm sure.
In an effort to maintain control of the school (or sometimes just to "cut costs"), our administrators would ban things. I'm sure I'm not alone (heck, I know for a fact ~4,000 other kids were in with me) on this, and I wonder what it will be like when there is Total Surveilance.
Just a small list of the things that were banned. I'm sure you can think of reasons for all of these.
Most of that isn't too bad. Besides, most of the ill effects were mitigated by the fact that administrators couldn't be everywhere all the time.
But you know, in spite of draconian laws regarding fighting ("do not fight back, it will be interpreted as fighting and you will be expelled as well."), they didn't help at all with my friend James getting the shit kicked out of him in the boys' locker room. Repeatedly.
Oh, and by the way, there were cameras in my high school. They were only there for investigation of destruction of school property. That's it.
I worry for other people. I worry that if the cameras are everywhere and used for private wars (I have spoken to many mid-level administrators in high schools and they do have a war mentality), or whether they will be transparent and open to everyone and then used to enforce social norms.
School is not society, I know. But high school is a time that we learn to question, and when we truly learn to fend for ourselves. I remember walking through the rabbit warrens of my high school ("maze of twisty passages, all alike" is a good descriptor), and I remember there being halls where it was just us kids. Hundreds moving quickly and talking amongst each other, and I remember that no one saw anything.
So, the question is whether we're going to enable the beaurocrats who just want to keep the peace and make sure everything goes smoothly[1], or whether we're going to teach these kids that you have to rely upon yourself in the short term.
High school kids aren't animals. They're smart, and they're wiley. And many of them are just crazy mean --- their lack of recognition of their own mortality makes it impossible for them to understand empathy. Make something verboten, and they'll use it persecute their enemies. Most people forget that blackmail is not all that uncommon in high school, amongst the right crowd. Sure, it's penny ante and it's short term, but it's there.
So ask yourself: would things be any better if we could see everything?
Sounds to me like you're arming savages with dynamite, and I'm not sure any of them are thinking clearly enough to recognize the short fuse when they see it.
[1] - All of those weird rules were made because they indicated something that might cause problems, and it's easy to nail someone for a technical violation rather than an act. "Did you steal that book?" "No, and you can't prove I did." "True. But you're wearing baggy pants and a blue t-shirt. Have fun in detention for a week." Is it right? It's not really concerned with right and wrong. It's concerned with keeping the peace.
Deficit spending in and of itself doesn't increase the money supply (in the long term), as bonds issued to pay for the debt in the usual case.
True, bonds increase the money supply in the short term. They are competition for private investment, however, which is another bad thing, and is quite explicitly "borrowing against your economy" as investment is one of the things that fuels the economy.
As for the tax cuts...I'd like to think that congress would've started buying back some of the debt, but I remember the talk of hugely expanded spending when the budget "surplus"[1] was announced.
The problem is, since most people either a) have no problem with defecit spending, or b) (more commonly) don't care, there is no reward to politicians to pay off the debt. In fact, as it is a very nice and very subtle way to tarpit your economy, it might even be seen as a good way to keep a recession going so as to hurt your political opponent in office (remember: presidents are held accountable to the economy, not congress). Not saying that's happening now, but I am saying it's probably crossed a few politicians' minds over the years.
But at the same time, there are serious hazards to preventing the government from defecit spending, and there are more important subjects to attend to. Besides, ever since congress discovered that the best way to stay elected is to have a bunch of nice cushy government contracts go to your district, we've been selecting politicians that will do it more and more often. Rather than get in the way of them doing what we want them to do, we could just stop rewarding them for doing it. Just something to think about.
[1] - speaking of which, I really wish that when I didn't spend as much one year as the next (regardless of what I make), it was referred to as a "surplus" and was a sign that I could go out and spend a bunch of money. Yes, I know, it's a *budget* surplus, but....
5.) The Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) - 1939
Oh, and it's caused a new episode of showing how fucked both our expectations are and our reality is: the hullabaloo over ATM fees.
For those not familiar with the full issue: a company puts out an ATM machine and charges a fee to withdraw money from it. Some machines charge as much as $10 to withdraw $100.
This got some people so hopping mad that, in some localities, they decided what a far fee would be, and mandated that the companies could only charge that.
In response to that, most of the banks shut down access to ATMs from non-bank customers, and many of the private companies folded or cut down the number of ATMs available. There's talk of forcing banks to allow non-customers to use their system, etc. etc..
In short: people's expectations are fucked, because they expect some things to be provided for free, and they've discovered they can legislate it to be for free. And they're shocked when they get the bill for what they did.
On the other hand, I've heard that because of some legal situations, only a few establishments were permitted to run those ATMs, and there was some hanky-panky that closely resembeled collusion amongst the ATM companies and/or the locales that allowed the ATMs[1], that was pretty much enabled by the government (if you have enough competitors, it's pretty hard to have a "gentleman's agreement" amongst ATM providers).
Anyone have more info regarding this?
[1] - I heard that there were some situations where, say, a mall (which is only supposed to rent places out and maintain the facilities, not decided who lives and who dies) would make a deal only allowing one ATM company in, in exchange for a very nice rent. Then again, even that would seem to be within their rights.... I mean, everybody knows not to buy food at a theme park if you can avoid it. The same would become true of the mall and the ATM machines.
Unbacked systems (rather, systems backed with the "full faith and credit" of the issuer) have some very positive aspects.
They can also have some very negative aspects.
There are 3 types of taxes: taxes on trade, taxes on holdings, and taxes on the money supply. The third is very, very dangerous in a system where politicans are at least theoretically accountable to the people, as a tax on the money supply is a subtle death.
Taxes on the money supply are usually levied by increasing the money supply. In its most egregious form, this is called "defecit spending" but it's not the only form. Altering rules of the FED is another way (and there's plenty of tricks that can be played there, but most of those do not involve porkbarrel politics).
An interesting suggestion that some countries have followed (though sometimes for short periods of time) is to have an external entity control the money supply. This ranges from a banking board (the Albanian dollar{?} is done this way, and has shown remarkable stability recently, I'm told), to having government only be able to spend in foreign currency --- which is a very odd way of doing things, but it basically amounts to this: since you can't print your own Pounds without Britain getting somewhat upset, you have to buy pounds with dollars. This has the drawback, however, of if the government decides to go on printing money to buy Pounds (or, even worse, decides to set its own exchange rate and use theoretical pounds), things can go really crappy, really quick.
The thing to remember is that taxing your money supply is much like borrowing against your economy.
Of course, there are those who say that deficit spending is not a big deal. I've heard arguments ranging from "it has no effect" to "you can't show an effect" to "private sector expansion (bank loans and such) has a far greater impact than government does".
I don't have any hard data, and I'm not enough of an expert to be able to interpret it well anyways.
And don't expect to get a straight answer out of anyone: you're dealing with some severe belief systems here.
On the one side you have the monetarists, and then you have the Keynsians, and so on and so forth. See here for some more.
Oh, and so as to introduce a bit more current events, you might be interested to know that the monetary policy over in Iraq right now is truly fucked. Cato has been issuing reports on what's going on, and whether or not you're a Monetarist or Keynesian, things are not looking good.
One of the problems is that with open source, the user is usually motivated to solve the problem or has someone around who is motivated. Most consumer product complaints basically involve people who want to scream at you until you "fix it."
I think part of the problem is that there aren't well-known and trusted "computer mechanics."
This is partially caused by the "my son the computer whiz" syndrome, where people know some kid that seems to be good at computers, and they get him to fix their computer. Sometimes (often, in fact), the kid can fix the problem, and that's great. But it means that people are loathe to go or flat out don't know where to go to get their problem fixed.
I think open source can help with a lot of this, as it's possible for a small shop to be able to fix just about any problem that comes up with a computer that uses OS software. Not likely, but possible. But they in turn are likely to know whom to call to get the problem fixed. Or maybe this is just because most OS problems stem from misconfiguration and other simple things because the level of skill required to do basic administration on a *nix is much higher.
Anyways, back to your subject: I find the most important thing with tech support is a well-organized and accessible database of past problems and solutions. Many companies are flat-out embarassed to admit they have problems with their software, and thus will not make their bug database available. Perhaps there's a legal liability issue here that I'm not aware of, but I'd hate to think such could be truly fixed by lying to people.
Having your bug database (even if it's just the closed bugs) available makes it far easier for a semi-experienced person to fix issues as they come up. If you have a good taxonomical system in place as well, then it becomes of use to even more people.
Another aspect is the software writing itself. I'm working on a mid-sized project right now, and most of my work is going towards: prevent the problem, and produce logging and error reports that are sufficient to narrow down not just this problem, but related problems in the future.
One of the funny aspects of this is in user interface. Often times a user says "this didn't do what I expected it to do," or the even more classic "I don't know if it worked or not, and I can't really tell if anything's wrong." The latter is a sure sign of a poor interface. The former is a sign of poor documentation.
And that's another thing: most people don't read documentation because it isn't written properly. There are basically two types of documentation: tutorial and reference. I've seen some good tutoreferences, but they are few and far between (and not usually as good as the two in pair).
The best man pages I have seen have a tutorial (sometimes as simple as examples) in one section, and a reference in another section.
I have noticed that if you have a very good tutorial, a very good reference, an accessible bug database, and a good troubleshooter, you do get the "I didn't read the documentation, but that won't keep me from shouting" problems every once in a while, but most of those people, once the very good resources are shown to them, become different people entirely.
Though this may only be true for a major tool. Minor stuff may always get the shouting[1].
[1] - In this case, you need to remember that you are writing a minor tool. If what it does is simple, keep it simple. If what it does is complex, make sure people understand it's complex. Good examples: (if you understand regexps) grep is simple, cat is simple. find is complex (for a simple tool).
And "fair use" is largely determined by what doesn't trespass into either "for profit", or degradation of value
Important to note here that "fair use" is related to "for profit" and "degredation of value" not in a "it can't be for profit and it also cannot degrade the value" way. I'm not sure what the exact relation is, but it's not that.
I'm going to run into trouble here, because I'm also not sure what qualifies "degradation of value." It's a tough one.
Consider: it is perfectly legal to perform a copyrighted play or show a copyrighted movie and charge to reimburse the costs of putting on the show without the prior permission of the copyright holder. It's spelled out right in the copyright law, and it's held up in case law.
Now, of course, this is not "for profit" but according to currently bandied about definitions of dilution of value, this is a big one: you have shown a movie, and all of the people who saw it could have instead bought it, or seen it at a movie house where they would charge and pay royalties.
Of course, the difference is that in file sharing you're giving out copies.
But with internet radio, you're no more giving out copies than a radio station is, and the ruling right now is that internet radio is not a public performance, it is transcription, therefore there is no fair use non-profit exclusion and the royalty rates are higher than for a radio station.
I think the thing that needs to be clarified is what is "dilution of value"? I used to know, but now I'm being told it's something else. That it's everything I do with copyrighted material in which I am not paying the copyright holder.
It's beginning to piss me off, actually. And some of the shenanigans with copyright holders insisting that you need to pay for many things that qualify as fair use makes me think "fraud."
Sorry, I'm just a bit pissy today.
Regardless, we need to discover or rediscover a good rule or at least precept for what "dilution of value" is. Other wise either everything is, or nothing is, and neither of those sound right[1].
[1] - I've heard some claims that playing a competing publisher's music along with yours is diluting the value of your work in aggregate, which is part of how copyright is licensed these days. That's a bit far out, if you ask me.
Well, it's not an all-or-nothing thing. For instance, I wouldn't argue that quoting a book in a journal article would be a violation of copyright, and indeed we call that fair use.
So, if copyright is not an all-consuming power, would it be reasonable to say that said file trading might be a fair use?
If your trading is not commercially motivated, this becomes a viable argument, if not under the pre-DMCA copyright law[1], then perhaps as a motivator for change.
One of the big reasons for this is that it's understood that copyrighted material does naturally flow into our daily lives, and it is reasonable for us to interact with and through it. Copyright was not meant to be a tollbooth.
This "not for commercial use" means a lot more than most people give it credit for: most money made by artists (or, in these days, the company that owns the artist) is made via commercial ventures (well how about that, captain obvious?).
seriously, prime profit-making enterprises:
To do anything that would truly cause harm to the copyright holder, you'd have to trespass into the "for-profit" area[2].
Of course, there is the argument that as iPods and such things become more and more common, that the need for the physical media will grow less and less, and when that happens the non-commercial file trading will replace the commercial selling of music. Dunno how to answer that, really, as the jury still seems to be out on that.
[1] - IIRC, it IS a viable argument under the pre-DMCA copyright law. Again, it has to not be for commercial gain.
[2] - I mention this not to justify file trading so much as to show that the commercial clause really is quite effective.
Three things mar what would be an otherwise great justification of the practice here.
Errrm...but I really wasn't trying to justify it, just set up portions of a discussion. Either way, looks like someone does want to have the discussion, so maybe we can clear some things up.
there is a difference between distributing materials on the street[...see above post for rest...]
That does tend to block off the "moral crusader" route, which is probably the route you should take if you want to see the law repealed.
Perhaps, though, the distribution on the street and the distribution at the computer methods do differ.
Thinking this through: what is it about the computer that makes it to where people feel free about distributing files? It's not anonymity for the most part, as many traders set up nicknames or handles for themselves, establishing pseudonymity. Often they tend to like talking to one another and talking about what they like and don't like, and what's cool and what's not. ShareReactor is a good example of that. Most of the hugely successful communities either offer 1) incredible selection, or 2) a chatting community that leads people to "cool stuff."
Most tend to succeed at the latter, if they succeed at all. Note that this does not have to be intrinsic to the network, it can grow up around the network (BitTorrent, for example).
Well, you can get that from doing it on the street, too.
On the other hand, what's the likelyhood of you just plopping your butt down on the sidewalk and finding some psychadelic trance fans who have some nice tracks that they want you to check out for no reason at all but because they're cool.
Pretty low, unless you're at a trance convention, and then you're likely to run into marketroids and others who try to work the marketing system.
Also, on the street unless everyone has laptops or something along those lines and headphones and a way to connect, people aren't going to be able to listen as they trade and chat. LAN parties tend to be that way, but they aren't the sidewalk.
Come to think of it, LAN parties are very, very much like the P2P systems in some respects: lots of files swapped across, lots of stuff shown, listening while you trade, going off and doing other stuff, etc.
Most likely on the street you're going to have to give people tapes or CDs, and then you look like a radio station or a promoter.
So maybe there is something different between the examples. One is what the community is, and one is purely a protest, and probably wouldn't win any sympathies.
Maybe we should advertise the fact that at our next LAN party we will have files available to trade? Even that doesn't sound like the community. Hmmm...can you think of a way to do what the community is like and also have it be very public and "moral crusade"?
When in the culture of file trading, it often becomes very difficult to say that it's wrong. Most of the time, it's not people in dark trenchcoats saying "I got what'chu need, ese", it's more of "check this shit out, man! You liked that track by Infected Mushroom, right? Well, check out Trance Cowboy. Here's my collection, check a few of them out, they're righteous."
Has more in common with people sitting around with discmans and headphones swapping CDs.
But of course, they're not "swapping CDs" they are duplicating them. There isn't any burning need for them to buy the album so they can get that music. Maybe when we're in the culture it just *seems* right without *being* right.
Just something to consider. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
They explicitly stated the reasons: in order to promote further development and creativity.
But at the same time, most don't feel that that is the case, nor do they feel that the justification fits the extension. That means that the "justification" is a bit shaky, if not wrong.
Example: you and I are friends, and we both love The Simpsons. I
The reality is that so far I haven't seen a very convincing defense of music piracy.
I'm not going to take a stab at this, but I'd like to hear what you think about a few points. Who knows, maybe it'll clear up the debate a little bit.
Let's say that distribution of pro-abortion material was deemed offensive in your district. Further, it was deemed obscene. Now let's say that people really do feel that way, and it's not just an attempt to squelch free speech.
If you were to distribute informational pamphlets that discussed abortion in a positive light, you would be committing an illegal act. Furthermore, you would be distributing (or attempting to distribute) these pamphlets to people who truly found them offensive.
Would you be right in doing it, even if it's illegal?
Sorry that I used "abortion" but I'm in the buckle of the bible belt, and we run into those questions down here.
How does this relate to "music piracy"? Because it serves to illustrate several assumptions:
The trick is how copyright works. Consider for a moment what copyright means. It is not property. It can be bought and sold, but it is not quite property. It is a government granted, sanctioned, and enforced monopoly granted for a limited time. It is literally taking out phrases, ideas, and images from our freedom of speech.
Is that wrong? Well, I'd be hard pressed to say that was wrong, because we do have the sense that someone who makes something owns it, whether draftsman or craftsman. But at the same time, for freedom of speech to exist we shouldn't have to worry so much about what we say.
Also, consider what freedom of speech is: it's a description of a lack of controls upon an interaction. Copyright is intrinsically an interaction between two people when its value is assessed.
A work of art can be enjoyed solely by its creator without copyright coming in to play, much as land can be enjoyed only by its owner without needing someone else to desire that land.
So, copyright is a restriction upon speech and a restriction upon interaction, and it is granted for a limited time.
If that is true --- that copyright is a restriction, not a restriction in the sense of "two people cannot both own 100% of something" like land or material items, but a restriction in the sense that "I can own what you say" --- then perhaps the onus is not upon we the public to justify our use of something so much as it is upon the copyright holder to justify our lack of "permission" to use it.
Why do I mention this? You ask for a justification for "piracy." I think that's a bit turned around on its head.
When copyright was set out in America (note that I can only speak for America), most of the argument boiled down to "alright, we'll put up with this abomination, but only for a short while, and only if it benefits us" because copyright was not viewed as a "right."
Maybe it should be. I don't know. But regardless, if you're going to argue about the current copyright system, you need to consider upon whom the responsibility for justification is. Much of the law comes from discovering upon whom obligation for justification lies.
Most of the good arguments I've heard against music trading is that it dilutes the value of their property[1]. Does that hold up? Well, that's an argument for the statisticians.
These are just some things to consider. I'd like to hear anything you have to say concerning the subject. Please note that I am not "for" music piracy. Not really sure how I feel about it. I just would like to see a clearer discussion.
[1] - Please don't make the mistake of saying "it's bad because it's against the law." I've heard that a few times, and it's useless because when you're talking about right and wrong it makes little sense to discuss the factuality of the law. The premise behind the law, sure. But not the factuality.
Just curious, how is this different from a blacklist?
Blacklists are maintained by an authority, hence a hierarchial system. Web of trust (which this is based upon) can have a hierarchial system mapped on to it, but each user can act as its own blacklist/whitelist and share those properties either as a full weight or partial weight.
Essentially acts as the same thing...but not quite.
The idea would be that you could assign a special trust setting to either agencies or other admins that specifies that you trust them to make certain trust decisions for you (or, at least, that they'll weigh in on a trust decision).
The generating and spreading is not all that bad, and there is working art already (PGP keyservers).
"very rough" is a big overstatement. The tools are not polished, but they are far more than just usable.
But, yes. If I were going to convert a multi-million dollar project over to something, I'd be loathe to convert it to anything not "proven."
But at the same time you need to separate out the schema from the client: arch's schema is defined and stable. It is easily implemented. The client is very stable currently for the basic operations, and appears to be very stable for the more advanced operations[1].
But that is misleading terminology: if you only wanted to use arch right now to replace CVS + a little (ie introduce atomic commits, cheap branching, private repositories, and multi-file patches along with file renaming), it would be very stable.
So basically the starship does hit warp speed, but the replicators and holodeck still don't have a consistent interface.
Even so, it's probably better than your current dinghy.
[1] basic refers to basic editing and commiting. This hasn't changed in a long while. Advanced refers to things like star-merge (which merges previously mutually merged branches...no minor task), and email notification of changes. I say "appears to be" because that part of the client (and, yes, that's ALL client side) is relatively new and in flux.
distribution amplifies the challenges of (1)..(4)
This here is my favorite distributing version system. It goes to 11.
...Sorry, I couldn't help it.
There is a better solution already out there. It's called arch, it's GPL'd, and it works great. We're using it on our software project already, and the only problems I've had with it relate to a shift in thought on my part away from CVS.
It's designed by Tom Lord, and he did a lot of thinking about it, and he has designed an incredible solution which you can download now.
A few of the advantages off the top of my head:
I have been extremely pleased with the system because of its simplicity yet power. In my mind that's the sign of the Right Solution. Arch is pretty much based upon an extension to diff and patch (to allow for file renaming and such things), tar, and touch.
If you want to check it out, there's a wiki at: http://arch.fifthvision.net , and the latest releases of tla (the C version of arch that is being actively developed now that things have settled down to a final state) http://regexps.srparish.net/src/tla/ .
I suggestion you check it out and at least read over the documentation. It's different. The commands are a bit verbose, but I expect someone will write at least a wrapper pretty soon that allows you to be terse.