"...when it comes to shrinking the size of transistors, one of the chief methods for making chips that are smaller..."
I'm not sure if I should attribute such sharpness to the fact that this site is:
1. sponsored by MS
2. USian
3. or was it purposefully enforcing the sense of the article - perhaps at the time, they weren't aware of such a link between shrinking things, and their resuling smaller size..?
Not to mention the use itself of the phrase "shrinking the size" [shudder]
you moderators do realize, don't you, that modding up entries with links to funny pictures, cartoons, etc., for being funny is comparable to awarding an oscar to someone who hands you a copy of Titanic on video...
(If I had tons of money, I could
get a ProTools system, but it is not at all portable.)
Are you aware of programs like Samplitude? (www.sekd.com) It's in the same league as ProTools, a full DAW - multichannel mixing/processing/sampling in one app. At least, if price was your worry.
I remember someone, somewhere, once making the eye-opening remark that software can be compared to mathematical formulas, albeit very long and complex ones. Considering it in this light, it's as clear as day why software should be open, free, unprotectable by IP rights and so on: it certainly IS intellectual, but it sure as smeg can't honestly, seriously be held as property! In a sense, it's not so much a creation as it is a "formula" - or "recipe" if you will - waiting to be discovered.
Despite this, it is necessary to make some clarifications: the above holds true when comparing coding to math research, ie., comparing commercial software coders, writing software for companies for business-oriented ends, to university professors. That's where the difference lies: coders are better compared to applied engineers implementing that knowledge to serve business ends, and not to people who make it their profession to discover the underlying fundamentals of the field itself. Of course, with software, the distinction is blurred somewhat, it's not so clear-cut. In addition (unintended pun alert), mathematics is a natural, pure science, while programming exists of course only because CPUs do.
Where it is meaningful to make the distinction is when discussing how they are supposed to be paid for their work: professors/researchers are funded by their respective institution; engineers are "funded" by businesses. So, the question begs to be asked, who should be paying software "researchers"? The analogy breaks down further here since with GPL projects, even though used in business, are often written by a community who have nothing to do with the company in question. I guess the most logical answer here is to only consider the core team of organizers - the Mozilla team for instance.
Well, I don't really have an answer, I simply wanted to make this point, and possibly bring another perspective/analogy to the issue (heh, like we don't have enough of 'em.. beer, socialism, goodwill/altruism, enough eyeballs/scratch an itch, etc...).
The way I see this whole story of mass P2P music sharing, Napster didn't mark the end of freedom, or speech, with regards to copyrights on digital media, but rather, it was the first in what looks to become a long honing process of the so far relatively new and immature P2P model (at least in the way of public adoption). The next few years may likely see more than one P2P model spring up, become quashed by the army of goons that is the RIAA, only to spawn the next generation, which will seek to find a yet finer and more subtle gap between copyright law on one hand, and maintaining a convenient and feasible P2P model on the other. That is, if napster was too broad and explicit and rough around the edges in its attempt to ultimately serve as a base (no reference to zig launching) for music trading, then the subsequent next few will refine their way around the different legislation till a final middle ground will have been reached.
The most obvious obstacles that'll prove to be a hindrance to the whole process are :
1. For a particular model to work, no matter how much technological prowess it may boast, it won't get anywhere without mass adoption;
2. The model that will eventually attract the necessary attention to make it workable will also attract the attention of the aforementioned goons;
...and so continues the vicious circle, henceforth into oblivion (er.. yeah).
Ok so this is all speculation, but in spite of the numerous predictions of doom and gloom for Our Rights Online(tm) in the future, I think this will all have to sort itself out, such as has happened time after time in the past (albeit in a slightly different context this time, now that it's all a matter of 0s and 1s and fuzzy distinctions thereof).
This is all well and good, an honourable outreach of the FSF into realms other than their own familiar world of software. However the "opening" of music doesn't yield the same advantages that can be had with the analogy of software.
With software, the idea is that you can access the source to be able to make your own modifications, see how it works, learn from it, and so on. THAT's the primary aim. It's not the only one of course, others include keeping the source together with the compiled program, keeping it free (beer), etc...
In the case of this music "copyleft" on the other hand, you don't get the benefits they had in mind when they created the GPL; it doesn't lend itself in a useful way when music is the IP in question. It's not like you're not getting all the pre-mastered project files from Cakewalk/ProTools/whatever. You don't get the benefit of seeing how it was made, from which to glean useful tricks of the trade and learn and build up your own knowledge.
[This is, of course, all possible - with the myriad MODule formats created in the last 15 years (MOD ULT 669 FAR STM S3M XM IT and now BUZZ, and so on). That's what made it possible for so many bedroom artists to hone their skills (without huge amounts of gear I might add), and what encourages people to get into composing in the first place - in line with the whole demoscene philosophy, not too far off from the hacker/geek one really, to which it owes its existance incidentally.]
Without all that, I don't see this (o) thang as being hugely relevant; sure, they sound like they're trying to liberate music to its former state before it became simply another commercial industry, but the people that want to release their music into the public domain are already doing that. It's just not introducing any of the revolutionary ideas that the GPL introduced / built on, ie. the ability to (re)use the code in your own way, learn from it, the potential harnessing of myriad programmers around the globe, and all that.
Of course, I haven't *really* read the whole thing properly yet:) and that probably wasn't even their aim in the first place, merely a legitimate form of copyright to proect artists who wouldn't have the backing of a record label. Maybe I should go read the damn thing now... =)
What the SMEG is it with the word nuclear, noone can get it right! I've almost invariably heard it pronounced incorrectly on tv / radio.
However this is the first time I've seen it *written* wrongly imitating the way it's (incorrectly) pronounced, in one of the posts higher up (like I wrote it in this post's subject)
It's pronounced "new-clear" damnit, get it right!@#
Slashdot Mirror
How about this group then? They're undoubtedly legit - AND, to top it off, they're Swedish!
"...when it comes to shrinking the size of transistors, one of the chief methods for making chips that are smaller..."
I'm not sure if I should attribute such sharpness to the fact that this site is:
1. sponsored by MS
2. USian
3. or was it purposefully enforcing the sense of the article - perhaps at the time, they weren't aware of such a link between shrinking things, and their resuling smaller size..?
Not to mention the use itself of the phrase "shrinking the size" [shudder]
Ok it's back to the halfbakery for me!
---
you moderators do realize, don't you, that modding up entries with links to funny pictures, cartoons, etc., for being funny is comparable to awarding an oscar to someone who hands you a copy of Titanic on video...
(If I had tons of money, I could get a ProTools system, but it is not at all portable.)
Are you aware of programs like Samplitude? (www.sekd.com) It's in the same league as ProTools, a full DAW - multichannel mixing/processing/sampling in one app. At least, if price was your worry.
--
I remember someone, somewhere, once making the eye-opening remark that software can be compared to mathematical formulas, albeit very long and complex ones. Considering it in this light, it's as clear as day why software should be open, free, unprotectable by IP rights and so on: it certainly IS intellectual, but it sure as smeg can't honestly, seriously be held as property! In a sense, it's not so much a creation as it is a "formula" - or "recipe" if you will - waiting to be discovered.
Despite this, it is necessary to make some clarifications: the above holds true when comparing coding to math research, ie., comparing commercial software coders, writing software for companies for business-oriented ends, to university professors. That's where the difference lies: coders are better compared to applied engineers implementing that knowledge to serve business ends, and not to people who make it their profession to discover the underlying fundamentals of the field itself. Of course, with software, the distinction is blurred somewhat, it's not so clear-cut. In addition (unintended pun alert), mathematics is a natural, pure science, while programming exists of course only because CPUs do.
Where it is meaningful to make the distinction is when discussing how they are supposed to be paid for their work: professors/researchers are funded by their respective institution; engineers are "funded" by businesses. So, the question begs to be asked, who should be paying software "researchers"? The analogy breaks down further here since with GPL projects, even though used in business, are often written by a community who have nothing to do with the company in question. I guess the most logical answer here is to only consider the core team of organizers - the Mozilla team for instance.
Well, I don't really have an answer, I simply wanted to make this point, and possibly bring another perspective/analogy to the issue (heh, like we don't have enough of 'em.. beer, socialism, goodwill/altruism, enough eyeballs/scratch an itch, etc...).
--
I just can't seem to be able thwart amusing images of potential future headlines in reference to the above:
Computer Hacker Hospitalized with Severe RSI After Several Failed Attempts to Scrawl Complete DeCCS Code on Community Blackboard
I mean, it'll just have to happen, right?
--
The way I see this whole story of mass P2P music sharing, Napster didn't mark the end of freedom, or speech, with regards to copyrights on digital media, but rather, it was the first in what looks to become a long honing process of the so far relatively new and immature P2P model (at least in the way of public adoption). The next few years may likely see more than one P2P model spring up, become quashed by the army of goons that is the RIAA, only to spawn the next generation, which will seek to find a yet finer and more subtle gap between copyright law on one hand, and maintaining a convenient and feasible P2P model on the other. That is, if napster was too broad and explicit and rough around the edges in its attempt to ultimately serve as a base (no reference to zig launching) for music trading, then the subsequent next few will refine their way around the different legislation till a final middle ground will have been reached.
The most obvious obstacles that'll prove to be a hindrance to the whole process are :
1. For a particular model to work, no matter how much technological prowess it may boast, it won't get anywhere without mass adoption;
2. The model that will eventually attract the necessary attention to make it workable will also attract the attention of the aforementioned goons;
...and so continues the vicious circle, henceforth into oblivion (er.. yeah).
Ok so this is all speculation, but in spite of the numerous predictions of doom and gloom for Our Rights Online(tm) in the future, I think this will all have to sort itself out, such as has happened time after time in the past (albeit in a slightly different context this time, now that it's all a matter of 0s and 1s and fuzzy distinctions thereof).
--
This is all well and good, an honourable outreach of the FSF into realms other than their own familiar world of software. However the "opening" of music doesn't yield the same advantages that can be had with the analogy of software.
:) and that probably wasn't even their aim in the first place, merely a legitimate form of copyright to proect artists who wouldn't have the backing of a record label. Maybe I should go read the damn thing now... =)
With software, the idea is that you can access the source to be able to make your own modifications, see how it works, learn from it, and so on. THAT's the primary aim. It's not the only one of course, others include keeping the source together with the compiled program, keeping it free (beer), etc...
In the case of this music "copyleft" on the other hand, you don't get the benefits they had in mind when they created the GPL; it doesn't lend itself in a useful way when music is the IP in question. It's not like you're not getting all the pre-mastered project files from Cakewalk/ProTools/whatever. You don't get the benefit of seeing how it was made, from which to glean useful tricks of the trade and learn and build up your own knowledge.
[This is, of course, all possible - with the myriad MODule formats created in the last 15 years (MOD ULT 669 FAR STM S3M XM IT and now BUZZ, and so on). That's what made it possible for so many bedroom artists to hone their skills (without huge amounts of gear I might add), and what encourages people to get into composing in the first place - in line with the whole demoscene philosophy, not too far off from the hacker/geek one really, to which it owes its existance incidentally.]
Without all that, I don't see this (o) thang as being hugely relevant; sure, they sound like they're trying to liberate music to its former state before it became simply another commercial industry, but the people that want to release their music into the public domain are already doing that. It's just not introducing any of the revolutionary ideas that the GPL introduced / built on, ie. the ability to (re)use the code in your own way, learn from it, the potential harnessing of myriad programmers around the globe, and all that.
Of course, I haven't *really* read the whole thing properly yet
--
What the SMEG is it with the word nuclear, noone can get it right! I've almost invariably heard it pronounced incorrectly on tv / radio.
:)
However this is the first time I've seen it *written* wrongly imitating the way it's (incorrectly) pronounced, in one of the posts higher up (like I wrote it in this post's subject)
It's pronounced "new-clear" damnit, get it right!@#
there.. finally got that off my chest