Works for me, especially if things are made easier for the typical user to make use of and even alter the code to fit their specific needs. Thus making open access an extra value to the consumer/user.
Certainly this would be a big winning plus in the game of compitition.
Joel, it seems to me that right in what you have to say, you words from experience are based on the current methodologies of developing software.
You are really speaking in terms of a race, like perhaps a horse race to be the first to the finish line, regardless of how chopped up you make the track. You recognied that, so does Microsoft. The people in the stands placing bets, aren't placing bets on who is the most graceful and tears the track up the least, but who will cross the finish line first.
There will always be a rake to go over the track and hide the mess later, like a complier converting the code into something the machine understand but impossible to read by even the programmer.
But here is the problem: The race has got to get alot faster.
Imagine the programming task that would be required to do just the software side of a holodeck (star trek fiction or fantasy?) simulation so real and detailed and interactive as the show presents. (perhaps keeping in mind that when cell phones came about they were actually more complex)
With current software development methodologies, it's not possible. Or at least no more possible to calculate by hand what computers were designed to do in a more reasonable time period. You can do it, just not within a reasonable timeline to make it useful. Computers simple just made the calculation run much much faster, even faster today. Running such a program is not the problem, it's creating the program within a reasonable timeline.
And this is the bases of your experience and communications on the matter of software development.
We used computers to automate calculations and then run then very fast. We need to do the same thing with software development. But upon doing that, it will change the race, change who the jocky is and even the horse. Maybe even change what the people in the stands bet on.
Unfortunately for the track owners, this is something that is more likley to evolve out of community property such as the OSS/GPL side of the spectrum. But it will also be a good thing for everyone.
Maybe all I'm doing here is simply pointing out why you are right, for now.
Re:Barriers to Knowledge, and Business Models
on
The Future of Ideas
·
· Score: 2
"But the fact is that barriers to accessing information create wealth. So in order for those barriers to come down, alternative means to create wealth must be created.
Actually the business side of the matter is easy. A more difficult part is to design a law/license that supports "Can" based methodologies (as opposed to the "Cannot" based IP laws we have now.)
The GPL is such a "can" based license but does nothing in providing some sort of option for creator/improver financial flow. On the other hand there is no reason the GPL works can't be used in the right model to generate monitary flow towards those responsible.
But the hard part is to present the consumer, the typical user, a part in the process of helping to create and a share in the rewards. Of course these positions would be optional, but should be available to the user. But the thing is, the way things are currently done in software development don't really allow the user such a position.
Lets' face it, open source code is of little value to the consumer and that makes linux more a programmers OS than a commercial one. Include the user and it becomes everybodies OS. To some point linux is doing this in giving the user the easy ability to recompile the kernal to suite their needs. But it needs to go alot further by making it easy for the user to do more at the code and integration levels.
What makes GNU/Linux stand out is it's openness. And that means alot to those who can program or want to learn current methodologies of programming. But for the typical user, they generally don't have the interest in learning the current methodology and need something simpler.
Considering that programming is an act of automation, it shouldn't be difficult to build a system that openly supports automation of coding and compiling.
I can either buy windows and get trapped into it's closed system but application software is plentiful (now) or I can get linux for it's openness and ability to allow me to do, to apply my creativity and ideas, if only it was easier to do these things...
But let's say it is, that such a system friendly to the users creativity and integration choices exists, what sorts of business models can you then create around such ability?
Something that can include the user in all aspects of moving the platform forward, from sales, to support to creation and custom integration, and certainly including training.
The sort of system that as it grows in popularity, so does it's value in being made better and with more and more applications, but a system that evolves in the direction of what the users want, not what the corporation wants the user to have and be entrapped by.
The business model is easy, the hard part is making development easy enough for the user to participate in.
The objective here is not to remove law but to change the incentive generated by the reward. To change the incentive of restricting others from use to incouraging them to use.
Certainly you would NOT want the following law to vanish.
The Universal Law
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily. The function of society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
The Constitution
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to Articles 1 and 2.
Then there is the gears and bearings that all this happens on... but you have to figure out how to get there, to that link.
This ether field, this noise state from which all else comes out of..... What is the controlling factor that decides what comes out of the noise?
Life has an aura that we can even photograph. The human brain generates energy that it uses and transmits, perhaps similar to being near high power lines and feeling the charge, but on a much different power level, in that the mind can more fully integrate with the ether/noise and cause something like a chain reaction and cause such forces to come out of the ether/noise. Like putting a filter on white noise causing some frequencies to be suppressed and others to be emphisized to get tone.
Mind over matter? OH damn! Someone has a patent on that too!
Rewarding those who do good things is certainly something nobody will argue against, for it's how we teach our children.
But to be rewarded with the ability to then tell others they cannot make use of what good you have done is for others worse then you never having done it.
Do you see the inherent contridiction of giving exclusive use as a reward?
Change the IP laws from "cannot" based to "CAN" based and the forward moving force to advance will have a great deal less friction against it.
Who is to say that being rewarded with exclusive use that you will use such exclusive use to it fullest benefit to you and society? There is no magic intelligence that you somehow receive upon getting exclusive use granted you, that insure you will do the best thing.
However, to have "CAN" based laws such that anyone can use what good you have done, so long as they give you proper credit and reward. Perhaps based upon a relative percentage of the profits one makes in using your good. Or perhas this is a probelm area the public can better solve? see below!
This way, it's not up to just the do gooder to then figure out the best way to impliment the good, but rather up to any and everyone who wants to make use of it. Consider the following quote!
One of the papers from the Duke university Public domain conference didn't make it into the "download all papers" archive on that site: Coase's Penguin
"At the heart of the economic engine of the world's most advanced economies, and
in particular that of the United States, we are beginning to take notice of a hardy,
persistent, and quite amazing phenomenon--a new model of production has taken root,
one that should not be there, at least according to our most widely held beliefs
about economic behavior. It should not, the intuitions of the late 20th century
American would say, be the case that thousands of volunteers will come together
to collaborate on a complex economic project. It certainly should not be that these
volunteers will beat the largest and best financed business enterprises in the world
at their own game. And yet, this is precisely what is happening in the software
world." - Yochai Benkler
On the other hand, a field like chemistry today is such an established science that we have chemical mega plants and it no longer is a matter of how to do something, make a new compound, but what compounds to make. This is a field that began where? Alchemy, majic potents. Trial and error?
Sure you can view chemicals as majic dust but how far is that really gone to get someone?
With software, and no matter how you "view it", it's still going to be a matter of manipulating abstractions in order to control the physical state of the machine, be the machine binary, trinary or whatever. In doing this, there is an identifiable physical set of actions that is used regardless of how you view and define the tools of "computer languages".
The whole point of creating computer languages was not for the sake of creating computer languages but in order to control a massive count of switches that exist in reality. A count way beyond what any human can manually handle. The solution is in creating word=definitions to define a given state or change in state. Like the most simple act in math, addition. Only here the available set of usable abstractions is only limited by imagination and real hardware limitations (the potential on both sides of the equation). At the very core, it's bit flipping but on such a massive scale that the only way to do it is to define and used such abstractions.
word = definition -the most fundamental act of programming.
But the action set remains the same and regardless of what you call it, how you "view it" or how you use it.
The VIC is an identification of these, defined in terms of computer functionality (inherently limited to the scope of the physical hardware) and in a configuration that supports maximum possible versatility. Even the name "Virtual Interaction Configuration" was taken from the field of physics, not some invention of some computer industry marketing hot hype of abstract words. Look up "Virtual Interaction" in the book "Tao of Physics" (which you should be able to find in any decent book store - the original source is probably alot harder to find but mentioned in Tao of physics).
So we have a mass of physical switches to control and use the tool of "word=definition" in making it easier to do. And as the mass count of "word=definition" grows we then create languages and syntax to help us better deal with the count while adding versatility. But at this point it's not a matter of dealing with a mass problem of physical based switches but rather a mass problem of absractions.
And it is here where recursion should be identified. Recursion in using the same solution direction and physical action set to solve the "mass" problem.
You can go to higher and higher level abstractions, languages, but every time you run into a "mass" problem, the same action set will be used to solve it. And that proves the action set valid. And regardless of what level you use the action set on, be it in creating the hardware (i.e. transistor = layer configuration of chemicals at the atomic charge level, cd player = a hardware configuration, etc.), hardware to software, or abstraction level of software.
So after creating over 3000 programming languages, you'd think the science of software would have figured this out already.
Oh wait! There is no science of software yet. And that is because the dragon of money has blinded and made witches and warlocks to create majic potents. Potents that give them power over the ignorant. If you sail out there, you'll fall off the edge of the world if you make it past the sea dragons....
you've repeatedly indicated that you consider your VIC to be some kind of absolute truth - "natural logic", "cannot avoid using", etc
It is. Maybe having the objective of first identifying the action constants had something to do with this outcome?
I think you'd have better luck starting from scratch and comming up with a different way to preceive gravity in order to solve problems with the theory.
There is just something about me changing what it is I'm interfacing with (AI) to get to your last post (ID) in the thread (PK) and read it (OI) on my monitor (IP) and access the links you gave (IQ) before I can respond thru the web editor (OP) within the limit (KE) of space to write and time I have to spend on a response. All of which I do in a sequencial (SF) manner.
Although the human application of these nine action constants goes much further in the example than given, the point is, selection of where they are identified for control is the key. Computer are less complex than we are and as such we do have choice as to where to identify the action constants in using them thru computer to automate.
In any event, they are action constants, not abstractions. They are what you use to process abstractions. And although I have assigned to each of them a two letter absraction symbol, this symbol is itself redefinable so that there is not conflict within the scope of a given use. And they are redifinable on the fly.
You cannot solve a general langage problem by inventing another language. You can however understand the underlying action constant that is used in all languages and as such be able to change which language you are using in order to avoid the limitations of given language. By going to a language that has not the same limitations.
Sorta like using a saw to cut the wood but then a hammer to nail it, changing the tool as needed. And language is a tool.
This is really important. That is the information regarding the amount of the world military resources being three times that needed to solve all the major problems in the world.
The logic is along the lines of preventitive health care.
Solve the problems, take care of the world, and you greatly reduce the probability of conflict and of course prevent large bills of warfare.
The more people that digest this information, the sooner it will happen!
(for the first link you mention here) Math is a subset from the spectrum of available abstractions. Would you like to deny this? In other words, and contrary to popular belief, to constrain computing to the abstraction subset of math is, in analogy and recursiveness, like constraining math to the abstraction subset of roman numerals. And then trying to explain algerbra.
The no silver bullet article is not currently available through my ISP but like most other links to articles you have posted, I'm aware of them and their content.
Did I not already say that there is no majic algorythim? but for what you quoted, there is no "invention" is true, what is the physical phenomenon of the natural laws of how we use abstractions is three for three not something you can claim is an invention.
You mentioned plan9 and I'm aware of the plumber but realize it's rather limited, but a concept in the right direction.
As far as solving problems goes, there is a genuine class of problems to resolves and that is a task for genuine software engineering, but it should also be a task that once solved then made available for everyone to use and make use of in an automated manner. Such an example might be the business-form based applicaion you mentioned. As it seems to be figured out well enough to be then automanted in such a manner that the user can design and creae their specific applications of these concepts.
I really don't need to spend my life inputing into my brain all the "stuff" the computer industry comes up with. Such expectations from the computer industry for anyone to do this in their creative and productive use of computers is absolutely foolish and arrogant, if not just plain immature and ignorant. For who in all these other industries and uses of computers has the time to do what even those in the computer industry have a hard time keeping up with?
I don't! But what I do have the time for is to make use of consisant physics and nature base (intuitive - as far as intuitive goes) translation tools that allow me to put things together in the 2 deminsional spaced of the abstraction world, where the details are accessible for the benefit of fixing and/or customizing but the use of which is automated so that those who don't have the time to create the details or even know what the details are, can still use them in their own creations via automated use, "auto-coding."
So while you are arguing that I need to know all about creating a car, from it's first invention to design and recent breakhroughs to manufacturing all the parts including the mining of metal and the development of rubber... all the way out to the junk yard.
The fact is, I don't need to know any of this in order to learn to drive the car and make creative producive use of it.
Granted a computer is a different vehicle, it's far more versatile and can be shaped/programmed in very specific ways. And just as cars and other road vehicles have an established way of using them, with some variation, the tool of abstracion manipulation mechanics needs one, and as it turns out it needs to be something that's natural logic of abstraction creation and use and as such inherently not patentable. And that is what the VIC is.
There are over 3000 programming languages that have been developed over the history of electronic computers. That's far more then the documented human languages in the recorded history of man. But in all of these programming lanuguages, the list of programming concepts is by far, a great deal smaller. So from the user making use of auto-coding to the binary based hardware, there is translation mechanics which are the same physical and natural laws of abstraction manipulation - of which the user is capable of making productive use of, in being creative with concepts others have developed.
The fact is, is that you are going to hold to the position you have, no matter what I say or write.
Also Slash dot is a limited message board, in that the board is not designed to support ongoing threads but rather to obtain pretty much initial feedback on articles posted.
I'm sure that if you seek you shall find any article you want, typically what is supportive of your own perspective.
Your perspective is one that does not recognize the existance of the "software crisis" and as such there certainly can't exist a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. And to support your perspective you will of course ignore anything suggesting otherwise. In this case it means that you also have to ignore the fact the term "software crisis" came from the industry and still being used today. In essence you are saying the computer industry lies. Which then is a problem to solve. As a consumer and potential producer, I'm tired of being lied to by the computer industry, but I'm not going to ignore the potential of the computing tool I call an Abstraction manipulation machine.
You can go from the extream of astro-architexture to the opposite of not seeing the forest for the bark of the particular tree you are looking at, but the only thing that proves is that any perspective can be presented with bias of against or for, and even applied in ways proving either is the fact. It's rather inherent in the ability of an abstraction machine to be able do so, follow what a human directs it to do.
But in all of this, you cannot avoid using the nine action constants. You can of course chose to not be aware of this. But so long as you are doing this ignoring, you will not be able to progam complexity of the level of what would be required of just the programming side of a High Quality Virtual Reality holodeck, and certainly not at the direction of a small child.
So as long as you are happy and can function productively within the ceiling of constraints as is the current approach to programming, there is no problem such as the software crisis. But for those, like myself, who see how to go way beyond current ceilings of constraints, those who resist and either prevent or suppress such advancements to only allow them to happen under their control, there is in fact elitism. And as a result of elitism there is inherently failure due to incomplete satification of client and user, especially for those clients and users who want to do it for themselves or add to what is or customise, but are not allowed to due to lack of the availability of down to earth tools of abstraction manipulation, automation mechaincs.
There is no majic algorythim, only the human programming of dynamic automation, which includes automation of programming, of an endless amount of things and actions upon those things in order to translate or convert input to output. And as such is the endless amount, compatability and integratability become issues to resolve.
The common conversion point is the carrier signal, the gears and bearing, the action constants. What is abstraction manipulation, translations mechanics. It's not a language, but an action set.
There is no rule of knowledge or of putting things together that says I need to study all written works ever existing in order to be smart enough to be able to put things together. But if it will make you happy, I'll use the nine action constants to add your suggestions to what is becomming an endless list of what others think I need to do before I'm somehow qualified enough to become aware enough of what actions I use with consistancy, to do anything I may chose to do.
However, Being that I do realize these actions, I can certainly see how such awareness of these actions, and control of, can help me create "word = definition" and that with enough words, I can create new words with new meanings, etc.
Really, just because something has become second nature in ourselves doesn't mean we are always aware of our use of such second nature things, though when they are pointer out we may think nothing important of them.
But the thing is, computers don't know "second nature" but only what we program them to do. And it seems that although the computer software industry can automate anything no matter how complex it is, the one thing they consistantly seem to fail at automating is the field of programming, and to the extent of failing the ability of the typical user making use of such automations.
Human language converted to the language a machine understands at the physical hardware level is an act of transation that uses gears and bearings of translations to do so. Which are the natural laws of the physical phenomenon of abstraction creation and manipulation.
Why I have taken the time out to try and get you past all the things you do not want to pass? Because someone else will see this here on an several day old slash dot article reader response list?
There is a link near the bottom of my new home page regarding an arguement for a python installed system..... .
People, look around you and know that you cannot always prove something, but lack of proof doesn't make it not exist or not have happened. Buy applying a form of deception called neo- cheating, you can easily deceive without threat of getting caught.
We have many examples of this in society today, Microsoft has done alot of it but so have many others, including individuals.
Now in the probability of there existing higher intelligent life than ourselves, don't you think they would be better at such deception on one hand, while on the other having reason to not want to make contact, a least until we get over trying to blow ourselves up?
We really don't know enough about physics, gravity, anti-gravity or all the things that might be derived in technology from such knowledge, such as what we call faster than light travel.
The point is, communication is a two way street! And unless all seti is, is an effort to pick up signals sent so long ago that the sending party is long gone and/or to send such signals that we well be long gone to ever know if they were received, then clearly:
WE ARE NOT WORTHY!:)
A little proof of that can be found here where anyone can see that a world that spend three times the cost of solving all the major problems in the world, on military strength for defense against "threats" instead, certainly is a world bent on destruction.
I mean damn, here we are spending so much resource in a futile effort rather than spending those resource (seti, military, etc..) in a way that might show us as being civilized enough for another intelligent life form to want consider contacting us. .
I didn't create or define the term "software crisis" The computer industry did in the mid 1960s. And the computer industry continues to use the term as an identification of a class, and sum total effect, of problems"
Your failure to know this seems to be consistant with failing to understand that it's not "language" and "syntax" that's the real issue, but rather getting the translation mechanics figured out.
This way it really won't matter what vocabulary (language) set and syntax you use. But rather opens the door up for combining languages as well as extending and creating them. Allowing you to use the better vocabulary and syntax for what you are expressing.
Translation simply takes whatever you have written and converts it into the optimum bit sequence for the machine to deal with.
Or for that matter, Translation from whatever form to whatever target form that is defined. Like Human to human Translations (i.e. English voice input to german audio/spoken output.)
The translation mechanics are going to be the same.
There is nothing wrong with defining new concepts, such as language does. But in having the science of translaion mechanics figured out, it will enable new concepts to applied alot sooner and probably alot easier too.
.
Re:It all boils down to bit flipping 1's and 0's
on
Lightweight Languages
·
· Score: 2
When we actually have trinary state hardware then it will be a matter of translation processes that boils down to trinary states for that type of hardware. For quantum state, translation proceses that boils down to quantum states, for quantum state hardare. For analog computing, the translation process would.......
Encoding to a selected base is also a translation process, but not one that is directly compatable with the hardware without further translation (that you don't see), unless it is to the base compatable to the hardware.
Hardware is made of matter and apparently a refresher course wouldn't hurt you. Back to basics is always a good thing when you have forgotten them or have gone astray to the point of failing to solve problems like the software crisis.
Since programming language vocabulary and syntax is the human side of a human -> machine translation process (a process of translation through an interpreter, compiler, whatever etc.. to 0's and 1's), and usually requiring human "logical" thinking, isn't the real objective here one of identifying and defining abstraction manipulation functionality, the logic of translation mechanics?
Certainly if the target is to be an optimized sequence of 0's and 1's then is it not the translation mechanics responsible for getting it there, and from whatever vocabulary(s) and syntax(s) used?
This is where I believe genuine computer science and software development research got seriously distracted by the carrot of money. And as it was mentioned in the article regarding not doing it right in a tradeoff of getting it out the door, getting back to genuine computer science may be difficult to do! But it also seems to be an ongoing and growing problem in genuine Software Engineering. The latest version of a need to solve the software crisis?
Note that IBM presents a white collar high dollar I/T solution direction intent, but without any identification of the base functionality mechanics of translation.Read Written Comment #4 after reading the "Manifesto" at the above IBM link.
With all this in mind, what are all these "Lightweight Languages", but examples of how many ways you can create a custom vocabulary, syntax and translator that outputs 0's and 1's not always in the optimum sequence?
.
.
If the US Government doesn't compromise with terrorist, why is that and how does it's result effect the US power position?
Are the answers to such questions relative to GNU free software and RMS's position?
Absolutely! Now maybe that an extream analogy to make, but then again, maybe it's not. For certainly Bill Gates uses war like Business tactic including the concept self sacrifice to cause the opposition to also lose, and Microsoft is just one example. An example that compaired to IBMs seven year lead on getting patents granted (including the recent US patent #6304886 for HTML templates) make MS realisticly almost non existant in IP constraints applied.
The point is, RMS is very correct and anyone who takes a much fuller scope view of the free vs. proprietary software battle, will KNOW IT with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
I used a threshold of 4 to read some of the comments posted so far and I'm amazed at what I found to be not only those who wrote the posts but moderators moding them up, that seem to not be in very good touch with a clear picture of the battlefield. Yet every time there is some crazy Patent issued, most then jump to a direction that is far more intune to RMSs hard stand.
Maybe this story would have gotten a different general response had there been alot more recent stories of silly patents of the obvious?
But here is the fact: either of the GNU desktops on Linux will be used by choice of the user, to the degree of which they choose to mix free with proprietary and regardles of opinions or stands people take or licenses. But you cannot fully say the same thing about Windows XP can you? (not to mention the anti-GNU/GPL license of.net)
Do not let the root of GNU become compromised by the nice sounding words of corporations and their IP bankers. For as soon as GNU gets root rot, you will witness even IBM changing their stand regarding OSS faster then you can snap your fingers.
Then again, maybe those who are hard on RMS would be interested in at least explaining the benefits of US compromising with terrorist?
For doesn't controlled/constrained IP impose limitations on our freedoms (sometimes to the point of telling us we can not use obvious and common sense solutions?)
Gene having been in the military (Navy I believe) drew alot from his knowledge of it as well as making many contacts for obtaining more and ongoing information.
It is more likely that Roddenberry (sp?) created fiction based upon fact and genuine science theory than the other way around. Though at some point there is bound to be the creative license use.
One such example of technology existing prior to use in the show is what many would recognize as the newer type of communicators, the combadges. As it turns out, the technology these combadges are based on has existed since before the original Star Trek show. That technology is what you can do a google search on "neurophone".
And having been one who got a chance to play around with a prototype, I can say that it does in fact work and what you read about it being better for the high end of the hearing range is correct.
But this doesn't much support the imagination to reality direction, for Roddenberry wanted to make his show as realistice in information as he could and often would bug NASA for technical info (and they were glad to help because in turn the show helped gain public interest in the space program) while incorporating current social issues into the plot of each show.
However, there were a few shows that Roddenberry did in fact write the plot around the concepts of moving imagination into reality. In fact "Q" was such a character capable of such power.
The reality is that there is a truth to it. In the process of creating anything, we must first be able to imagine it. Take the general picture and begin filling in the details. Really not so unlike the process of creating software.
There is even an identified formula for it:
T1 (I + E) = v T2 (k)
T1 = non-mystical thought, T2 = things in physical reality, k = the active constant, I = degree of Intent, E = degree of Effort, v = velocity of conversion
A formula that like any math equation, makes two statements. Here it is: All things in physical reality can be comprehended and all things that can be comprehended in non-mystical thought can be created.
I spelt out no details, yet you have concluded a great deal out of so little I have said (which amounts to a general goal).
I have visited your web site, inspired by the.edu address of it and how it relates to the story this thread is a response to.
Perhaps you should visit mine? Let me suggest the "concepts" section of this web page
This way it just might be possible to design IP "can" based laws that work to genuinely advance technology, rather than being used to restrict and control technology and who benefits or not.
Gotta start with the general idea and then work on filling in the details. That's how creation works, even in the 3 most popular religions in the world.
Perhaps you have another reason for being opposed?
Are you somehow personally benefiting from "cannot" based IP laws?
IP laws today are "cannot" based. As in you cannot use unless you have approval, etc.
This practice needs to change to "Can" based laws. As in you can use but if you receive monies for doing so, you must direct a percentage back to the IP holder.
Though this doesn't directly address the public vs. private investment direction, I believe it would cause such a change in IP application perspective that would be far more beneficial to all involved. And that is what the overall objective is of IP laws - to benefit humanity to the greatest potential possible.
There has been several articles this past month or so on slashdot that go into the benefits and differences of private and public IP holdings. Now the hing to do is to merge the benefits of both into laws that everyone can better live with. IP "CAN" based laws.
The problem is in getting heard, getting your name in front of paying public.
This is something that can perhaps be better dealt with thru a public digital accessible classification and sampling system.
Even CD production cost can be removed or turned over to consumers PC. And I'm sure there are many other things that can be done to reduce cost while insuring monies get to the creative parites.
But without the consumer ever hearing your work, you cannot make sales.
So here I am, a consumer looking for a certain type of music over the internet and listening to samples. Where upon finding a song I like I pay for it, download it, etc..
Seems to me there is plenty to do in making such a midpoint service available to artists and consumers. Even something that makes CD creation extreamly easy for the consumer of such service.
And because the consumer is paying for individual songs, they are going to get better value for their money while the artist get better feedback as to what music of theirs the public likes.
Once an artist reaches a certain level of sales, the traditional marketing methods can come into play. Traditional methods that now have a way to better prequalify or improve/reduce risk. Overall greatly reducing losses which in turn improve payouts back to the successful artists..
In other words, technology can be used to greatly reduce the cost of overall losses obtained in traditional systems of the majority that the miniority successful end up paying for.
And it can even be used to help those who aren't top popular enough to earn a living thru traditional methods, to do so thru digital means.
With such changes happening so quickly it becomes clear that part of the responsibility of the law makers is to make these new laws known to the people and in a form they can understand and even more important, accept.
I don't want to have to read some damn encylopedia on human made digital law in order to then try and figure out what I can and can't do.
Computers are a versatile tool and it's bad enough that there are those who don't want to solve the "software crisis", but to put more and more constraints of what can and cannot be done is not going to help find solutions to problems many claim they want to solve.
Seems to me that the growing conflict of interest is going to get worse and as a result there will be a cyber war. A war between those who want to put great constraint on who can do what vs. those who know better and want to use computers to their fullest productive potential.
If being productive becomes illegal, then it'll be easy to see who the real criminals are, and who outnumbers who. Atlas Shrugged.
"Cannot" based IP laws are going to have to be changed to "can" based law that rewards those genuinely responsible for new and good things.
So what there is to do now is to start figuring out how to deal with this growing conflict of interest that's building up to war levels, and the governments most certainly know it.
Can't let them get away with creating laws that they can then interpret how ever the hell they want to. Thus the requirement of them to clearly define these laws in terms the general public can understand and to publish them for the public to genuinely see.
Otherwise it's not ignorance of the law, but rather failure to inform on the part of the law makers and their supporters. What could be construed as entrapment.
To start with, all products that have some sort of builtin mechanism that prevents such things as fair use, need to have a clear and obvious label regarding such, otherwise it is bait and switch advertising deception. The sort of thing that wrongly subverts knowledgeable consumer choice.
Last I looked, bait and switch is very illegal, and there is a consumer choice reason for it. Hence, there should be no supprises by the music industry in including copy protection, by having such copy protection mentioned and clearly viewable on the label.
The laws being created don't appear to be very honest or fair, and in fact may very well break some laws. So who really are the criminals?
Did those supporting Hitler see him as a criminal?
Maybe it's time for the OSS community to begin writing more realistic laws. So that when the time comes, there will be something to replace the laws made by criminals, with. Start thinking "CAN" based IP laws that reward the creators of values, rather then some organization that supposedly represents them! For in the digital world great effencies can be achieved by removing alot of fat. . .
Slashdot Mirror
Works for me, especially if things are made easier for the typical user to make use of and even alter the code to fit their specific needs. Thus making open access an extra value to the consumer/user.
Certainly this would be a big winning plus in the game of compitition.
.
Doesn't this pretty much describe the entire Linux operating system?
Yes and that is why Linux is ideal for automation.
.
from neo-tech, you can probably find it by searching their web site.
Though I first saw it in one of their publications many years ago.
Joel, it seems to me that right in what you have to say, you words from
experience are based on the current methodologies of developing software.
You are really speaking in terms of a race, like perhaps a horse race to
be the first to the finish line, regardless of how chopped up you make the
track. You recognied that, so does Microsoft. The people in the stands
placing bets, aren't placing bets on who is the most graceful and tears
the track up the least, but who will cross the finish line first.
There will always be a rake to go over the track and hide the mess later,
like a complier converting the code into something the machine understand
but impossible to read by even the programmer.
But here is the problem: The race has got to get alot faster.
Imagine the programming task that would be required to do just the
software side of a holodeck (star trek fiction or fantasy?) simulation so
real and detailed and interactive as the show presents. (perhaps keeping
in mind that when cell phones came about they were actually more complex)
With current software development methodologies, it's not possible. Or at
least no more possible to calculate by hand what computers were designed
to do in a more reasonable time period. You can do it, just not within a
reasonable timeline to make it useful. Computers simple just made the
calculation run much much faster, even faster today. Running such a
program is not the problem, it's creating the program within a reasonable
timeline.
And this is the bases of your experience and communications on the matter
of software development.
We used computers to automate calculations and then run then very fast.
We need to do the same thing with software development. But upon doing
that, it will change the race, change who the jocky is and even the horse.
Maybe even change what the people in the stands bet on.
Unfortunately for the track owners, this is something that is more likley
to evolve out of community property such as the OSS/GPL side of the
spectrum. But it will also be a good thing for everyone.
Maybe all I'm doing here is simply pointing out why you are right, for
now.
"But the fact is that barriers to accessing information create wealth. So in order for those barriers to come down, alternative means to create wealth must be created.
Actually the business side of the matter is easy. A more difficult part is to design a law/license that supports "Can" based methodologies (as opposed to the "Cannot" based IP laws we have now.)
The GPL is such a "can" based license but does nothing in providing some sort of option for creator/improver financial flow. On the other hand there is no reason the GPL works can't be used in the right model to generate monitary flow towards those responsible.
But the hard part is to present the consumer, the typical user, a part in the process of helping to create and a share in the rewards. Of course these positions would be optional, but should be available to the user. But the thing is, the way things are currently done in software development don't really allow the user such a position.
Lets' face it, open source code is of little value to the consumer and that makes linux more a programmers OS than a commercial one. Include the user and it becomes everybodies OS. To some point linux is doing this in giving the user the easy ability to recompile the kernal to suite their needs. But it needs to go alot further by making it easy for the user to do more at the code and integration levels.
What makes GNU/Linux stand out is it's openness. And that means alot to those who can program or want to learn current methodologies of programming. But for the typical user, they generally don't have the interest in learning the current methodology and need something simpler.
Considering that programming is an act of automation, it shouldn't be difficult to build a system that openly supports automation of coding and compiling.
I can either buy windows and get trapped into it's closed system but application software is plentiful (now) or I can get linux for it's openness and ability to allow me to do, to apply my creativity and ideas, if only it was easier to do these things...
But let's say it is, that such a system friendly to the users creativity and integration choices exists, what sorts of business models can you then create around such ability?
Something that can include the user in all aspects of moving the platform forward, from sales, to support to creation and custom integration, and certainly including training.
The sort of system that as it grows in popularity, so does it's value in being made better and with more and more applications, but a system that evolves in the direction of what the users want, not what the corporation wants the user to have and be entrapped by.
The business model is easy, the hard part is making development easy enough for the user to participate in.
And I know with certainty this can be done!
.
The objective here is not to remove law but to change the incentive generated by the reward. To change the incentive of restricting others from use to incouraging them to use.
Certainly you would NOT want the following law to vanish.
The Universal Law
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily. The function of society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
The Constitution
Article 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to Articles 1 and 2.
neo-tech.
Yep it is! Or at least what must exist in order for there to be "Theory."
equations along with concepts
Then there is the gears and bearings that all this happens on... but you have to figure out how to get there, to that link.
This ether field, this noise state from which all else comes out of..... What is the controlling factor that decides what comes out of the noise?
Life has an aura that we can even photograph. The human brain generates energy that it uses and transmits, perhaps similar to being near high power lines and feeling the charge, but on a much different power level, in that the mind can more fully integrate with the ether/noise and cause something like a chain reaction and cause such forces to come out of the ether/noise. Like putting a filter on white noise causing some frequencies to be suppressed and others to be emphisized to get tone.
Mind over matter? OH damn! Someone has a patent on that too!
Rewarding those who do good things is certainly something nobody will argue against, for it's how we teach our children.
But to be rewarded with the ability to then tell others they cannot make use of what good you have done is for others worse then you never having done it.
Do you see the inherent contridiction of giving exclusive use as a reward?
Change the IP laws from "cannot" based to "CAN" based and the forward moving force to advance will have a great deal less friction against it.
Who is to say that being rewarded with exclusive use that you will use such exclusive use to it fullest benefit to you and society? There is no magic intelligence that you somehow receive upon getting exclusive use granted you, that insure you will do the best thing.
However, to have "CAN" based laws such that anyone can use what good you have done, so long as they give you proper credit and reward. Perhaps based upon a relative percentage of the profits one makes in using your good. Or perhas this is a probelm area the public can better solve? see below!
This way, it's not up to just the do gooder to then figure out the best way to impliment the good, but rather up to any and everyone who wants to make use of it. Consider the following quote!
One of the papers from the Duke university Public domain conference didn't make it into the "download all papers" archive on that site: Coase's Penguin
"At the heart of the economic engine of the world's most advanced economies, and
in particular that of the United States, we are beginning to take notice of a hardy,
persistent, and quite amazing phenomenon--a new model of production has taken root,
one that should not be there, at least according to our most widely held beliefs
about economic behavior. It should not, the intuitions of the late 20th century
American would say, be the case that thousands of volunteers will come together
to collaborate on a complex economic project. It certainly should not be that these
volunteers will beat the largest and best financed business enterprises in the world
at their own game. And yet, this is precisely what is happening in the software
world." - Yochai Benkler
BTW, my home page is relative to this matter.
.
On the other hand, a field like chemistry today is such an established science that we have chemical mega plants and it no longer is a matter of how to do something, make a new compound, but what compounds to make. This is a field that began where? Alchemy, majic potents. Trial and error?
Sure you can view chemicals as majic dust but how far is that really gone to get someone?
With software, and no matter how you "view it", it's still going to be a matter of manipulating abstractions in order to control the physical state of the machine, be the machine binary, trinary or whatever. In doing this, there is an identifiable physical set of actions that is used regardless of how you view and define the tools of "computer languages".
The whole point of creating computer languages was not for the sake of creating computer languages but in order to control a massive count of switches that exist in reality. A count way beyond what any human can manually handle. The solution is in creating word=definitions to define a given state or change in state. Like the most simple act in math, addition. Only here the available set of usable abstractions is only limited by imagination and real hardware limitations (the potential on both sides of the equation). At the very core, it's bit flipping but on such a massive scale that the only way to do it is to define and used such abstractions.
word = definition -the most fundamental act of programming.
But the action set remains the same and regardless of what you call it, how you "view it" or how you use it.
The VIC is an identification of these, defined in terms of computer functionality (inherently limited to the scope of the physical hardware) and in a configuration that supports maximum possible versatility. Even the name "Virtual Interaction Configuration" was taken from the field of physics, not some invention of some computer industry marketing hot hype of abstract words. Look up "Virtual Interaction" in the book "Tao of Physics" (which you should be able to find in any decent book store - the original source is probably alot harder to find but mentioned in Tao of physics).
So we have a mass of physical switches to control and use the tool of "word=definition" in making it easier to do. And as the mass count of "word=definition" grows we then create languages and syntax to help us better deal with the count while adding versatility. But at this point it's not a matter of dealing with a mass problem of physical based switches but rather a mass problem of absractions.
And it is here where recursion should be identified. Recursion in using the same solution direction and physical action set to solve the "mass" problem.
You can go to higher and higher level abstractions, languages, but every time you run into a "mass" problem, the same action set will be used to solve it. And that proves the action set valid. And regardless of what level you use the action set on, be it in creating the hardware (i.e. transistor = layer configuration of chemicals at the atomic charge level, cd player = a hardware configuration, etc.), hardware to software, or abstraction level of software.
So after creating over 3000 programming languages, you'd think the science of software would have figured this out already.
Oh wait! There is no science of software yet. And that is because the dragon of money has blinded and made witches and warlocks to create majic potents. Potents that give them power over the ignorant. If you sail out there, you'll fall off the edge of the world if you make it past the sea dragons....
Isn't that what you keep trying to tell me?
You know, astro-architecture....etc..
.
you've repeatedly indicated that you consider your VIC to be some kind of absolute truth - "natural logic", "cannot avoid using", etc
It is. Maybe having the objective of first identifying the action constants had something to do with this outcome?
I think you'd have better luck starting from scratch and comming up with a different way to preceive gravity in order to solve problems with the theory.
There is just something about me changing what it is I'm interfacing with (AI) to get to your last post (ID) in the thread (PK) and read it (OI) on my monitor (IP) and access the links you gave (IQ) before I can respond thru the web editor (OP) within the limit (KE) of space to write and time I have to spend on a response. All of which I do in a sequencial (SF) manner.
Although the human application of these nine action constants goes much further in the example than given, the point is, selection of where they are identified for control is the key. Computer are less complex than we are and as such we do have choice as to where to identify the action constants in using them thru computer to automate.
In any event, they are action constants, not abstractions. They are what you use to process abstractions. And although I have assigned to each of them a two letter absraction symbol, this symbol is itself redefinable so that there is not conflict within the scope of a given use. And they are redifinable on the fly.
You cannot solve a general langage problem by inventing another language. You can however understand the underlying action constant that is used in all languages and as such be able to change which language you are using in order to avoid the limitations of given language. By going to a language that has not the same limitations.
Sorta like using a saw to cut the wood but then a hammer to nail it, changing the tool as needed. And language is a tool.
What the World Wants
This is really important. That is the information regarding the amount of
the world military resources being three times that needed to solve all
the major problems in the world.
The logic is along the lines of preventitive health care.
Solve the problems, take care of the world, and you greatly reduce the
probability of conflict and of course prevent large bills of warfare.
The more people that digest this information, the sooner it will happen!
with heart! 3seas
P.S. Of the many ways computer technology fits in: this may be of interest.
.
(for the first link you mention here) Math is a subset from the spectrum of available abstractions. Would you like to deny this? In other words, and contrary to popular belief, to constrain computing to the abstraction subset of math is, in analogy and recursiveness, like constraining math to the abstraction subset of roman numerals. And then trying to explain algerbra.
The no silver bullet article is not currently available through my ISP but like most other links to articles you have posted, I'm aware of them and their content.
Did I not already say that there is no majic algorythim? but for what you quoted, there is no "invention" is true, what is the physical phenomenon of the natural laws of how we use abstractions is three for three not something you can claim is an invention.
You mentioned plan9 and I'm aware of the plumber but realize it's rather limited, but a concept in the right direction.
As far as solving problems goes, there is a genuine class of problems to resolves and that is a task for genuine software engineering, but it should also be a task that once solved then made available for everyone to use and make use of in an automated manner. Such an example might be the business-form based applicaion you mentioned. As it seems to be figured out well enough to be then automanted in such a manner that the user can design and creae their specific applications of these concepts.
I really don't need to spend my life inputing into my brain all the "stuff" the computer industry comes up with. Such expectations from the computer industry for anyone to do this in their creative and productive use of computers is absolutely foolish and arrogant, if not just plain immature and ignorant. For who in all these other industries and uses of computers has the time to do what even those in the computer industry have a hard time keeping up with?
I don't! But what I do have the time for is to make use of consisant physics and nature base (intuitive - as far as intuitive goes) translation tools that allow me to put things together in the 2 deminsional spaced of the abstraction world, where the details are accessible for the benefit of fixing and/or customizing but the use of which is automated so that those who don't have the time to create the details or even know what the details are, can still use them in their own creations via automated use, "auto-coding."
So while you are arguing that I need to know all about creating a car, from it's first invention to design and recent breakhroughs to manufacturing all the parts including the mining of metal and the development of rubber... all the way out to the junk yard.
The fact is, I don't need to know any of this in order to learn to drive the car and make creative producive use of it.
Granted a computer is a different vehicle, it's far more versatile and can be shaped/programmed in very specific ways. And just as cars and other road vehicles have an established way of using them, with some variation, the tool of abstracion manipulation mechanics needs one, and as it turns out it needs to be something that's natural logic of abstraction creation and use and as such inherently not patentable. And that is what the VIC is.
There are over 3000 programming languages that have been developed over the history of electronic computers. That's far more then the documented human languages in the recorded history of man. But in all of these programming lanuguages, the list of programming concepts is by far, a great deal smaller. So from the user making use of auto-coding to the binary based hardware, there is translation mechanics which are the same physical and natural laws of abstraction manipulation - of which the user is capable of making productive use of, in being creative with concepts others have developed.
The fact is, is that you are going to hold to the position you have, no
matter what I say or write.
Also Slash dot is a limited message board, in that the board is not
designed to support ongoing threads but rather to obtain pretty much
initial feedback on articles posted.
I'm sure that if you seek you shall find any article you want, typically
what is supportive of your own perspective.
Your perspective is one that does not recognize the existance of the
"software crisis" and as such there certainly can't exist a solution for a
problem that doesn't exist. And to support your perspective you will of
course ignore anything suggesting otherwise. In this case it means that
you also have to ignore the fact the term "software crisis" came from the
industry and still being used today. In essence you are saying the
computer industry lies. Which then is a problem to solve. As a consumer
and potential producer, I'm tired of being lied to by the computer
industry, but I'm not going to ignore the potential of the computing tool
I call an Abstraction manipulation machine.
You can go from the extream of astro-architexture to the opposite of not
seeing the forest for the bark of the particular tree you are looking at,
but the only thing that proves is that any perspective can be presented
with bias of against or for, and even applied in ways proving either is
the fact. It's rather inherent in the ability of an abstraction machine to
be able do so, follow what a human directs it to do.
But in all of this, you cannot avoid using the nine action constants.
You can of course chose to not be aware of this. But so long as you are
doing this ignoring, you will not be able to progam complexity of the level
of what would be required of just the programming side of a High Quality
Virtual Reality holodeck, and certainly not at the direction of a small
child.
So as long as you are happy and can function productively within the
ceiling of constraints as is the current approach to programming, there is
no problem such as the software crisis. But for those, like myself, who
see how to go way beyond current ceilings of constraints, those who resist
and either prevent or suppress such advancements to only allow them to
happen under their control, there is in fact elitism. And as a result of
elitism there is inherently failure due to incomplete satification of
client and user, especially for those clients and users who want to do it
for themselves or add to what is or customise, but are not allowed to due
to lack of the availability of down to earth tools of abstraction
manipulation, automation mechaincs.
There is no majic algorythim, only the human programming of dynamic
automation, which includes automation of programming, of an endless amount
of things and actions upon those things in order to translate or convert
input to output. And as such is the endless amount, compatability and
integratability become issues to resolve.
The common conversion point is the carrier signal, the gears and bearing,
the action constants. What is abstraction manipulation, translations
mechanics. It's not a language, but an action set.
There is no rule of knowledge or of putting things together that says I
need to study all written works ever existing in order to be smart enough
to be able to put things together. But if it will make you happy, I'll use
the nine action constants to add your suggestions to what is becomming an
endless list of what others think I need to do before I'm somehow qualified
enough to become aware enough of what actions I use with consistancy, to do
anything I may chose to do.
However, Being that I do realize these actions, I can certainly see how
such awareness of these actions, and control of, can help me create "word
= definition" and that with enough words, I can create new words with new
meanings, etc.
Really, just because something has become second nature in ourselves
doesn't mean we are always aware of our use of such second nature things,
though when they are pointer out we may think nothing important of them.
But the thing is, computers don't know "second nature" but only what we
program them to do. And it seems that although the computer software
industry can automate anything no matter how complex it is, the one thing
they consistantly seem to fail at automating is the field of programming,
and to the extent of failing the ability of the typical user making use
of such automations.
Human language converted to the language a machine understands at the
physical hardware level is an act of transation that uses gears and
bearings of translations to do so. Which are the natural laws of the physical
phenomenon of abstraction creation and manipulation.
Why I have taken the time out to try and get you past all the things you
do not want to pass? Because someone else will see this here on an several
day old slash dot article reader response list?
There is a link near the bottom of my new home page regarding an arguement
for a python installed system.....
.
People, look around you and know that you cannot always prove
:)
something, but lack of proof doesn't make it not exist or not
have happened. Buy applying a form of deception called neo-
cheating, you can easily deceive without threat of getting caught.
We have many examples of this in society today, Microsoft has
done alot of it but so have many others, including individuals.
Now in the probability of there existing higher intelligent life
than ourselves, don't you think they would be better at such
deception on one hand, while on the other having reason to not
want to make contact, a least until we get over trying to blow
ourselves up?
We really don't know enough about physics, gravity, anti-gravity
or all the things that might be derived in technology from such
knowledge, such as what we call faster than light travel.
The point is, communication is a two way street! And unless all
seti is, is an effort to pick up signals sent so long ago that
the sending party is long gone and/or to send such signals that
we well be long gone to ever know if they were received, then
clearly:
WE ARE NOT WORTHY!
A little proof of that can be found here where anyone can
see that a world that spend three times the cost of solving all
the major problems in the world, on military strength for defense
against "threats" instead, certainly is a world bent on destruction.
I mean damn, here we are spending so much resource in a futile
effort rather than spending those resource (seti, military, etc..)
in a way that might show us as being civilized enough for another
intelligent life form to want consider contacting us.
.
I didn't create or define the term "software crisis" The computer industry did in the mid 1960s. And the computer industry continues to use the term as an identification of a class, and sum total effect, of problems"
Your failure to know this seems to be consistant with failing to understand that it's not "language" and "syntax" that's the real issue, but rather getting the translation mechanics figured out.
This way it really won't matter what vocabulary (language) set and syntax you use. But rather opens the door up for combining languages as well as extending and creating them. Allowing you to use the better vocabulary and syntax for what you are expressing.
Translation simply takes whatever you have written and converts it into the optimum bit sequence for the machine to deal with.
Or for that matter, Translation from whatever form to whatever target form that is defined. Like Human to human Translations (i.e. English voice input to german audio/spoken output.)
The translation mechanics are going to be the same.
There is nothing wrong with defining new concepts, such as language does. But in having the science of translaion mechanics figured out, it will enable new concepts to applied alot sooner and probably alot easier too.
.
When we actually have trinary state hardware then it will be a matter of translation processes that boils down to trinary states for that type of hardware. For quantum state, translation proceses that boils down to quantum states, for quantum state hardare. For analog computing, the translation process would .......
Encoding to a selected base is also a translation process, but not one that is directly compatable with the hardware without further translation (that you don't see), unless it is to the base compatable to the hardware.
Hardware is made of matter and apparently a refresher course wouldn't hurt you. Back to basics is always a good thing when you have forgotten them or have gone astray to the point of failing to solve problems like the software crisis.
.
Since programming language vocabulary and syntax is the human side of a human -> machine translation process (a process of translation through an interpreter, compiler, whatever etc.. to 0's and 1's), and usually requiring human "logical" thinking, isn't the real objective here one of identifying and defining abstraction manipulation functionality, the logic of translation mechanics?
Certainly if the target is to be an optimized sequence of 0's and 1's then is it not the translation mechanics responsible for getting it there, and from whatever vocabulary(s) and syntax(s) used?
This is where I believe genuine computer science and software development research got seriously distracted by the carrot of money. And as it was mentioned in the article regarding not doing it right in a tradeoff of getting it out the door, getting back to genuine computer science may be difficult to do! But it also seems to be an ongoing and growing problem in genuine Software Engineering. The latest version of a need to solve the software crisis?
Note that IBM presents a white collar high dollar I/T solution direction intent, but without any identification of the base functionality mechanics of translation.Read Written Comment #4 after reading the "Manifesto" at the above IBM link.
With all this in mind, what are all these "Lightweight Languages", but examples of how many ways you can create a custom vocabulary, syntax and translator that outputs 0's and 1's not always in the optimum sequence?
.
.
Hmmm, works on all systems... watch ... uh..errr hear them keystrokes. A lantern that you can hear as well as see?
If the US Government doesn't compromise with terrorist, why is
.net)
that and how does it's result effect the US power position?
Are the answers to such questions relative to GNU free software
and RMS's position?
Absolutely! Now maybe that an extream analogy to make, but then
again, maybe it's not. For certainly Bill Gates uses war like
Business tactic including the concept self sacrifice to cause the
opposition to also lose, and Microsoft is just one example. An
example that compaired to IBMs seven year lead on getting patents
granted (including the recent US patent #6304886 for HTML templates)
make MS realisticly almost non existant in IP constraints applied.
The point is, RMS is very correct and anyone who takes a much fuller
scope view of the free vs. proprietary software battle, will KNOW IT
with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
I used a threshold of 4 to read some of the comments posted so far
and I'm amazed at what I found to be not only those who wrote the
posts but moderators moding them up, that seem to not be in very good
touch with a clear picture of the battlefield. Yet every time there
is some crazy Patent issued, most then jump to a direction that is
far more intune to RMSs hard stand.
Maybe this story would have gotten a different general response had
there been alot more recent stories of silly patents of the obvious?
But here is the fact: either of the GNU desktops on Linux will be used by
choice of the user, to the degree of which they choose to mix free with
proprietary and regardles of opinions or stands people take or licenses.
But you cannot fully say the same thing about Windows XP can you? (not to
mention the anti-GNU/GPL license of
Do not let the root of GNU become compromised by the nice sounding
words of corporations and their IP bankers. For as soon as GNU gets
root rot, you will witness even IBM changing their stand regarding OSS
faster then you can snap your fingers.
Then again, maybe those who are hard on RMS would be interested in
at least explaining the benefits of US compromising with terrorist?
For doesn't controlled/constrained IP impose limitations on our
freedoms (sometimes to the point of telling us we can not use obvious and
common sense solutions?)
.
Gene having been in the military (Navy I believe) drew alot from his
knowledge of it as well as making many contacts for obtaining more and
ongoing information.
It is more likely that Roddenberry (sp?) created fiction based upon fact
and genuine science theory than the other way around. Though at some point
there is bound to be the creative license use.
One such example of technology existing prior to use in the show is what
many would recognize as the newer type of communicators, the combadges.
As it turns out, the technology these combadges are based on has existed
since before the original Star Trek show. That technology is what you can
do a google search on "neurophone".
And having been one who got a chance to play around with a prototype, I
can say that it does in fact work and what you read about it being better
for the high end of the hearing range is correct.
But this doesn't much support the imagination to reality direction, for
Roddenberry wanted to make his show as realistice in information as he
could and often would bug NASA for technical info (and they were glad to
help because in turn the show helped gain public interest in the space
program) while incorporating current social issues into the plot of each
show.
However, there were a few shows that Roddenberry did in fact write the
plot around the concepts of moving imagination into reality. In fact "Q"
was such a character capable of such power.
The reality is that there is a truth to it. In the process of creating
anything, we must first be able to imagine it. Take the general picture
and begin filling in the details. Really not so unlike the process of
creating software.
There is even an identified formula for it:
T1 (I + E) = v T2 (k)
T1 = non-mystical thought, T2 = things in physical reality,
k = the active constant, I = degree of Intent, E = degree of Effort,
v = velocity of conversion
A formula that like any math equation, makes two statements.
Here it is: All things in physical reality can be comprehended and
all things that can be comprehended in non-mystical thought can be
created.
But it really does all begin with imagination and the application of consciousness (see concepts)
.
I spelt out no details, yet you have concluded a great deal out of so little I have said (which amounts to a general goal).
.edu address of it and how it relates to the story this thread is a response to.
I have visited your web site, inspired by the
Perhaps you should visit mine? Let me suggest the "concepts" section of this web page
This way it just might be possible to design IP "can" based laws that work to genuinely advance technology, rather than being used to restrict and control technology and who benefits or not.
Gotta start with the general idea and then work on filling in the details. That's how creation works, even in the 3 most popular religions in the world.
Perhaps you have another reason for being opposed?
Are you somehow personally benefiting from "cannot" based IP laws?
.
IP laws today are "cannot" based. As in you cannot use unless you have approval, etc.
This practice needs to change to "Can" based laws. As in you can use but if you receive monies for doing so, you must direct a percentage back to the IP holder.
Though this doesn't directly address the public vs. private investment direction, I believe it would cause such a change in IP application perspective that would be far more beneficial to all involved. And that is what the overall objective is of IP laws - to benefit humanity to the greatest potential possible.
There has been several articles this past month or so on slashdot that go into the benefits and differences of private and public IP holdings. Now the hing to do is to merge the benefits of both into laws that everyone can better live with. IP "CAN" based laws.
The road to hell is filled with good intentions.
All to often has something been done with good intentions to only become used wrongly.
Whatever we make, we can break, and that includes FBI/CIA/NSA/etc.. spyware.
So the reality is not one of catching the bad but rather removing the incentive of being bad.
As an example, take a close look at:
What the World Wants
Imagine that! We have enough resources from world military spending to solve major world problems not once, not twice, but three times over.
Hmmm, guess that means I just busted them all. And I didn't even need spyware (MAD - spy vs. spy) to do it.
Well, quite a few posters above did say those who work for such organizations as the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc.. aren't very smart. Now everybody has proof.
.
The problem is in getting heard, getting your name in front of paying public.
This is something that can perhaps be better dealt with thru a public digital accessible classification and sampling system.
Even CD production cost can be removed or turned over to consumers PC. And I'm sure there are many other things that can be done to reduce cost while insuring monies get to the creative parites.
But without the consumer ever hearing your work, you cannot make sales.
So here I am, a consumer looking for a certain type of music over the internet and listening to samples. Where upon finding a song I like I pay for it, download it, etc..
Seems to me there is plenty to do in making such a midpoint service available to artists and consumers. Even something that makes CD creation extreamly easy for the consumer of such service.
And because the consumer is paying for individual songs, they are going to get better value for their money while the artist get better feedback as to what music of theirs the public likes.
Once an artist reaches a certain level of sales, the traditional marketing methods can come into play. Traditional methods that now have a way to better prequalify or improve/reduce risk. Overall greatly reducing losses which in turn improve payouts back to the successful artists..
In other words, technology can be used to greatly reduce the cost of overall losses obtained in traditional systems of the majority that the miniority successful end up paying for.
And it can even be used to help those who aren't top popular enough to earn a living thru traditional methods, to do so thru digital means.
.
.
With such changes happening so quickly it becomes clear that part of
the responsibility of the law makers is to make these new laws known
to the people and in a form they can understand and even more important,
accept.
I don't want to have to read some damn encylopedia on human made
digital law in order to then try and figure out what I can and can't
do.
Computers are a versatile tool and it's bad enough that there are those
who don't want to solve the "software crisis", but to put more and more
constraints of what can and cannot be done is not going to help find
solutions to problems many claim they want to solve.
Seems to me that the growing conflict of interest is going to get worse
and as a result there will be a cyber war. A war between those who want
to put great constraint on who can do what vs. those who know better and
want to use computers to their fullest productive potential.
If being productive becomes illegal, then it'll be easy to see who the
real criminals are, and who outnumbers who. Atlas Shrugged.
"Cannot" based IP laws are going to have to be changed to "can" based
law that rewards those genuinely responsible for new and good things.
So what there is to do now is to start figuring out how to deal with this
growing conflict of interest that's building up to war levels, and the
governments most certainly know it.
Can't let them get away with creating laws that they can then interpret
how ever the hell they want to. Thus the requirement of them to clearly
define these laws in terms the general public can understand and to
publish them for the public to genuinely see.
Otherwise it's not ignorance of the law, but rather failure to inform on
the part of the law makers and their supporters. What could be construed
as entrapment.
To start with, all products that have some sort of builtin mechanism that
prevents such things as fair use, need to have a clear and obvious label
regarding such, otherwise it is bait and switch advertising deception. The
sort of thing that wrongly subverts knowledgeable consumer choice.
Last I looked, bait and switch is very illegal, and there is a consumer
choice reason for it. Hence, there should be no supprises by the music
industry in including copy protection, by having such copy protection
mentioned and clearly viewable on the label.
The laws being created don't appear to be very honest or fair, and in fact
may very well break some laws. So who really are the criminals?
Did those supporting Hitler see him as a criminal?
Maybe it's time for the OSS community to begin writing more realistic
laws. So that when the time comes, there will be something to replace the
laws made by criminals, with. Start thinking "CAN" based IP laws that reward
the creators of values, rather then some organization that supposedly represents
them! For in the digital world great effencies can be achieved by removing alot of
fat.
.
.