I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?
The point is that we don't want anyone to _have_ to use DRM. Making it available is one more step in that direction.
DRM is not a capability in the traditional sense. It's not a way for your software to do something. It's a way to prevent the user from using the software as they please, as directed by the content provider. That's a restriction, not a capability.
Cities are not useful only for their inhabitants, they serve a function for the whole economy. Since resources are concentrated, value can be created more efficiently, economies of scale, and whatnot.
Another way of seeing it, is how much waste for NYC generate per dollar. It has a GDP over 1400 billion dollars. This means that, if you were to get rid of NYC, because it's too wasteful, you would need around 4 or 5 large cities to replace the value it creates.
Probably, resource-wise, and waste-wise, nyc is not that inefficient, when you take into account, in your efficiency equation, that its value is much larger than hosting several million people.
Luckily, Uruguay's financial markets no longer rely heavily on dirty Argentinian money. There is still a lot of that money around here, but not as much as it used to be, so less financial risk for us. Anyway, a major financial meltdown in Argentina would most definitely affect us, and that's why I care.
The one in Plaza Independencia? They have a neon sign for bicoin safe deposit boxes, but they don't look that secure, I think you can even see them from the street. Also, their windows are lined with weird posters, like 9/11 conspiracy stuff.
I'm betting that''s just some guy, slightly nuts, with a bit of money to rent a place, not a real business.
When I go to mac donalds, I get a hamburger and a diet soda (I don't really care for the fries). Makes sense for me, a 500-600 calorie meal. I't a nice lunch, tastes good (all beef, even MCD, is awesome this side of the world), and even has lettuce and tomato.
Notice the word "I". When _I_ go, I have a hamburger (type not specified) and a diet soda (also not specified).
The hamburger I get is a McNifica, which, does have lettuce and tomato, alongside a largish patty. Looked it up, 541 kcal (http://www.mcdonalds.com.ar/mcnifica).
In your example, that double big mac has 700 calories.
A Big Mac has 530 calories. Not sure what a double Big Mac is since it isn't a standard part of McDonald's menu. By itself a Big Mac is fine now and then but people rarely eat just a Big Mac. Usually they have some fries and a sugar loaded soft drink too. This easily can get the meal over 1000 calories as you mention which is about half the daily caloric intake for an adult male.
You are missing the point at "usually". The GP was complaining about fat people _omitting_ the sugar, effectively keeping the caloric below insane ranges.
When I go to mac donalds, I get a hamburger and a diet soda (I don't really care for the fries). Makes sense for me, a 500-600 calorie meal. I't a nice lunch, tastes good (all beef, even MCD, is awesome this side of the world), and even has lettuce and tomato.
In your example, that double big mac has 700 calories. Not a diet meal, but not that excessive. It even has a lot of lettuce, which is good against blood sugar spikes, esp. a good thing for most fat people. A diet coke is zero cal,, but a large coke in the US add 300 calories, reaching 1000 which is too much for a single meal. You are right that large fries, at 500, are not a good idea, though.
Easy. You take an old copy from the public domain, invest time and money, make it beautiful, and republish it. Now, your work is copyrighted.
Some other guy can take an old copy and make it beautiful, but not yours. That's protected by copyright. He would have to invest again. And then compete against you.
So it's even better than in the case of books. With books, after they are in the public domain, it's a free for all, very low barriers to entry. With stuff that needs to be restored, it's even more lucrative for the republisher, because they get a new copyright, less competition.
Also, note that this only covers the 70-90 years of undigitized stuff. Todays works won't need _that_ kind of work done to be republished.
Very interesting point, in theory. Luckily, that kind of thing has been studied, and it=s the other way around. Copyrights hinder availability, and entering public domain is an incentive for publishing. Look at this, it was a study on Amazon availability of books : http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/copyright-stagnation.html. This shows that books seem to get republished as soon as they enter the public domain, and for a long time after that too.
Is killing an American hostage worse than killing a non American hostage? For practical purposes, we know it is, and even the Italian guy is from another NATO country, so not an American but an ally. But I just would like to know if there's any difference on paper in your responsibility, when you kill non hostile local civilians vs your own civilians / allies .
Also, about the title, drones don't kill people. Some force did, or some guy behind the controls, but the drone itself, no matter how autonomous it might be, doesn't kill people.
OK, I get that, I'm not sure that's more prevalent, and I was just providing a counter example. In Uruguay, spending on technology for education is a lot wiser at the government level, than it is at the private level.
I think that the market and the private interests are overrated. There are lots of cases where markets just don't work, and private interests add up against the common good. In those cases, people spending other people's money can end up with a better result, even accounting for corruption or lack of accountability.
And about our education system... In Uruguay, it's not really better than the US system. It's more egalitarian, but not that good. Public Universities are free, but poor kids can't really use them. If you are poor, chances are you will drop out of uni after one or two years, because you are unprepared in the first place. There are some student aids, but they don't meet demand. Also, high school results are worse in poor neighborhoods. Private schools are popular because of this, but they don't achieve better results, if you compare within the same economic bracket of population.
The OLPC is getting old, but it's WAY cooler than an IPAD. It has a keyboard, and is suitable for kids holding them for hours. Kids use them on the doorstep of someone with wifi, or even the school on weekends. They don't really get stolen, because there's no market for them, and they "die" if stolen. You can use them in the sun, because they have suitable screens. There's a dedicated network of local content, curricular and otherwise, even textbooks, tailored for it.
No way you can replicate all this, just by buying a crapload of consumer products. You need to create a tailored solution, thinking about the kids you are trying to reach. For instance, if they were doing this from scratch, it would look closer to a Lenovo Yoga or something like that, but with padding for kids, dedicated LTE or something close, and all textbooks included, something for teachers, something in that line.
Here in Uruguay, they got the OLPC. There is no market, and it works great. All kids in public school have their own, you see them using them on the streets, public squares. It has its application in classes, and most importantly, it was instrumental in connecting all schools with quality internet service, allowing for remote classes, that kind of thing. It was a success in many regards.
Private schools, on the other hand, are subject to market forces and stuff, but are usually pretty poor in their decision making. For example, my kids goes to a private kinder, and their usage of computers is pretty dumb, they still have a computer lab kind of thing, mainly because they weren't wise enough to get a complete solution. Public spending was a lot better around here.
I was just answering _your_ alternative proposal. I did look at the story, and I think it's a cool idea, that might even end up having some kind of application. This is research, not engineering.
ipads are most useful if you want to consume content. Not much to experiment with them, at least not with the Ipad itself.
3D printers are tools, awesome tools. They have nothing in common with Ipads, you can do stuff with 3D printers. Think of them as the logo turtles of today. They show kids a tangible application of programming, physics, math.
Teachers have the opportunity to choose to use that for teaching, or just let them tinker with cool stuff.
And I mean single teachers, they can just print a mechanical assembly, or an atom model, or a dna model, a geometric shape . With already existing, easy access easy to use, and most importantly, easy to share tools.
Compare that to the authoring you can do with an ipad (or a classroom full of ipads) by itself. You _might_ be able to sketch something, but the tools are just not there, or available.
I've know really smart mathematicians who couldn't be made to understand computer programming. And, likewise, I've known some awesome CS people who struggled with math.
Are you sure? It's hard for me to imagine an awesome CS person who struggles at math. CS is mostly math, or pretty close. Computability, regular expressions, automata, formal proofs, all of those are needed, in my book, to be awesome at CS, and I think you should be at least decent at math to grasp those.
There is a way to expand the model to the internet.
Say you pay a youtube subscription, and you get ad-free youtube, and for the same price, or for an additional, you get ad-free adsense. That means you won't ever see an adsense ad again. The sites will still have the adsense code, and google will just micro-pay, based on your usage of their site, from your subscription money.
Doesn't look like a bulletproof strategy to me, but something like that might end up happening.
Additionally, those who don't use adsense would be at a disadvantage, because youtube subscribers won't be able to make ads go away.
Of course, the privacy implications of all this are huge, because you would be essentially logged in everywhere, and that's another service that google would be able to provide.
And you might want to get your analogy checked, I don't thing it holds. Maybe if it was potato soup + recipe or something like that. In any case, no need for analogies. It's easier to get it without them.
They are not stealing anything from anyone. The users didn't have any source to begin with, for example. They are not entitled to the source. The problem lies in the other end. Ubiquiti is licensing some code, and not complying with the license, by not providing source. This means they are not covered by the license.
This is plain, simple, copyright infringement. Not stealing, something else. And when you do it for profit, most people agree it's a bad thing. At least in the current context.
There's also another bit that I fail to understand.
If the Chinese Firewall guys wanted to DoS github, they could just do it. Playing synthetic traffic against github, for example. Instead, we say that they hijacked their users computers, so they could generate traffic that in the end would have to go through the firewall.
From the firewall point of view, that wouldn't be a DDoS, because the attacker is always them, no distribution happens. It doesn't make sense, and it's a lot more work than just doing the DoS attack themselves.
Of course, MITM is something they can do, they might be doing that kind of thing, and hijacking clients computers for other reasons, but for this attack, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
In any case, you would need Amazon to actually enforce it. While they do have more money for legal fees, they would risk a big PR issue if they tried to prevent some guy from working at Walmart after quitting Amazon. Also, the first guy with such a problem wouldn't have a lot of trouble finding someone to help them with legal fees, if only for the publicity.
This is probably just a scare tactic, to discourage people from leaving them, it is unethical, but not really enforceable.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only conclude that the issue is not that you don't want to use that capability, it's that you don't want anyone else to be able to use that capability. The contradiction in wanting "open culture" to deny some users options that they desire never crosses your mind, does it?
The point is that we don't want anyone to _have_ to use DRM. Making it available is one more step in that direction.
DRM is not a capability in the traditional sense. It's not a way for your software to do something. It's a way to prevent the user from using the software as they please, as directed by the content provider. That's a restriction, not a capability.
Per capita might not be fair.
Cities are not useful only for their inhabitants, they serve a function for the whole economy. Since resources are concentrated, value can be created more efficiently, economies of scale, and whatnot.
Another way of seeing it, is how much waste for NYC generate per dollar. It has a GDP over 1400 billion dollars.
This means that, if you were to get rid of NYC, because it's too wasteful, you would need around 4 or 5 large cities to replace the value it creates.
Probably, resource-wise, and waste-wise, nyc is not that inefficient, when you take into account, in your efficiency equation, that its value is much larger than hosting several million people.
Luckily, Uruguay's financial markets no longer rely heavily on dirty Argentinian money. There is still a lot of that money around here, but not as much as it used to be, so less financial risk for us.
Anyway, a major financial meltdown in Argentina would most definitely affect us, and that's why I care.
The one in Plaza Independencia?
They have a neon sign for bicoin safe deposit boxes, but they don't look that secure, I think you can even see them from the street.
Also, their windows are lined with weird posters, like 9/11 conspiracy stuff.
I'm betting that''s just some guy, slightly nuts, with a bit of money to rent a place, not a real business.
I live across the river from them, you insensitive clod!
When I go to mac donalds, I get a hamburger and a diet soda (I don't really care for the fries).
Makes sense for me, a 500-600 calorie meal. I't a nice lunch, tastes good (all beef, even MCD, is awesome this side of the world), and even has lettuce and tomato.
A standard McDonalds hamburger does not come with lettuce and tomato. Catsup, mustard, pickle, minced onions. Has 240 calories.
Notice the word "I". When _I_ go, I have a hamburger (type not specified) and a diet soda (also not specified).
The hamburger I get is a McNifica, which, does have lettuce and tomato, alongside a largish patty. Looked it up, 541 kcal (http://www.mcdonalds.com.ar/mcnifica).
In your example, that double big mac has 700 calories.
A Big Mac has 530 calories. Not sure what a double Big Mac is since it isn't a standard part of McDonald's menu. By itself a Big Mac is fine now and then but people rarely eat just a Big Mac. Usually they have some fries and a sugar loaded soft drink too. This easily can get the meal over 1000 calories as you mention which is about half the daily caloric intake for an adult male.
You are missing the point at "usually". The GP was complaining about fat people _omitting_ the sugar, effectively keeping the caloric below insane ranges.
Overweight person here, but not from McD.
When I go to mac donalds, I get a hamburger and a diet soda (I don't really care for the fries).
Makes sense for me, a 500-600 calorie meal. I't a nice lunch, tastes good (all beef, even MCD, is awesome this side of the world), and even has lettuce and tomato.
In your example, that double big mac has 700 calories. Not a diet meal, but not that excessive. It even has a lot of lettuce, which is good against blood sugar spikes, esp. a good thing for most fat people. A diet coke is zero cal,, but a large coke in the US add 300 calories, reaching 1000 which is too much for a single meal. You are right that large fries, at 500, are not a good idea, though.
Easy.
You take an old copy from the public domain, invest time and money, make it beautiful, and republish it.
Now, your work is copyrighted.
Some other guy can take an old copy and make it beautiful, but not yours. That's protected by copyright. He would have to invest again. And then compete against you.
So it's even better than in the case of books. With books, after they are in the public domain, it's a free for all, very low barriers to entry. With stuff that needs to be restored, it's even more lucrative for the republisher, because they get a new copyright, less competition.
Also, note that this only covers the 70-90 years of undigitized stuff. Todays works won't need _that_ kind of work done to be republished.
Very interesting point, in theory. Luckily, that kind of thing has been studied, and it=s the other way around. Copyrights hinder availability, and entering public domain is an incentive for publishing.
Look at this, it was a study on Amazon availability of books : http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/03/copyright-stagnation.html.
This shows that books seem to get republished as soon as they enter the public domain, and for a long time after that too.
Is killing an American hostage worse than killing a non American hostage? For practical purposes, we know it is, and even the Italian guy is from another NATO country, so not an American but an ally.
But I just would like to know if there's any difference on paper in your responsibility, when you kill non hostile local civilians vs your own civilians / allies .
Also, about the title, drones don't kill people. Some force did, or some guy behind the controls, but the drone itself, no matter how autonomous it might be, doesn't kill people.
You are right. No sane foreign government would, but there are lots of the other kind.
OK, I get that, I'm not sure that's more prevalent, and I was just providing a counter example. In Uruguay, spending on technology for education is a lot wiser at the government level, than it is at the private level.
I think that the market and the private interests are overrated. There are lots of cases where markets just don't work, and private interests add up against the common good. In those cases, people spending other people's money can end up with a better result, even accounting for corruption or lack of accountability.
And about our education system...
In Uruguay, it's not really better than the US system. It's more egalitarian, but not that good.
Public Universities are free, but poor kids can't really use them. If you are poor, chances are you will drop out of uni after one or two years, because you are unprepared in the first place.
There are some student aids, but they don't meet demand. Also, high school results are worse in poor neighborhoods. Private schools are popular because of this, but they don't achieve better results, if you compare within the same economic bracket of population.
The OLPC is getting old, but it's WAY cooler than an IPAD.
It has a keyboard, and is suitable for kids holding them for hours.
Kids use them on the doorstep of someone with wifi, or even the school on weekends.
They don't really get stolen, because there's no market for them, and they "die" if stolen.
You can use them in the sun, because they have suitable screens.
There's a dedicated network of local content, curricular and otherwise, even textbooks, tailored for it.
No way you can replicate all this, just by buying a crapload of consumer products. You need to create a tailored solution, thinking about the kids you are trying to reach. For instance, if they were doing this from scratch, it would look closer to a Lenovo Yoga or something like that, but with padding for kids, dedicated LTE or something close, and all textbooks included, something for teachers, something in that line.
Here in Uruguay, they got the OLPC. There is no market, and it works great.
All kids in public school have their own, you see them using them on the streets, public squares. It has its application in classes, and most importantly, it was instrumental in connecting all schools with quality internet service, allowing for remote classes, that kind of thing. It was a success in many regards.
Private schools, on the other hand, are subject to market forces and stuff, but are usually pretty poor in their decision making. For example, my kids goes to a private kinder, and their usage of computers is pretty dumb, they still have a computer lab kind of thing, mainly because they weren't wise enough to get a complete solution. Public spending was a lot better around here.
I was just answering _your_ alternative proposal.
I did look at the story, and I think it's a cool idea, that might even end up having some kind of application. This is research, not engineering.
Power over ethernet implies cables.
Expected capture rate is not always 30/60fps.
ipads are most useful if you want to consume content. Not much to experiment with them, at least not with the Ipad itself.
3D printers are tools, awesome tools. They have nothing in common with Ipads, you can do stuff with 3D printers. Think of them as the logo turtles of today. They show kids a tangible application of programming, physics, math.
Teachers have the opportunity to choose to use that for teaching, or just let them tinker with cool stuff.
And I mean single teachers, they can just print a mechanical assembly, or an atom model, or a dna model, a geometric shape . With already existing, easy access easy to use, and most importantly, easy to share tools.
Compare that to the authoring you can do with an ipad (or a classroom full of ipads) by itself. You _might_ be able to sketch something, but the tools are just not there, or available.
Lost of people seem to be happy with adblock.
Think of it as as server side adblock, at the very least.
Also, with responsive design and everything, this would be a problem, but not a big one.
I've know really smart mathematicians who couldn't be made to understand computer programming. And, likewise, I've known some awesome CS people who struggled with math.
Are you sure?
It's hard for me to imagine an awesome CS person who struggles at math. CS is mostly math, or pretty close. Computability, regular expressions, automata, formal proofs, all of those are needed, in my book, to be awesome at CS, and I think you should be at least decent at math to grasp those.
There is a way to expand the model to the internet.
Say you pay a youtube subscription, and you get ad-free youtube, and for the same price, or for an additional, you get ad-free adsense.
That means you won't ever see an adsense ad again. The sites will still have the adsense code, and google will just micro-pay, based on your usage of their site, from your subscription money.
Doesn't look like a bulletproof strategy to me, but something like that might end up happening.
Additionally, those who don't use adsense would be at a disadvantage, because youtube subscribers won't be able to make ads go away.
Of course, the privacy implications of all this are huge, because you would be essentially logged in everywhere, and that's another service that google would be able to provide.
So it's not stealing. It's something else.
And you might want to get your analogy checked, I don't thing it holds. Maybe if it was potato soup + recipe or something like that. In any case, no need for analogies. It's easier to get it without them.
They are not stealing anything from anyone. The users didn't have any source to begin with, for example. They are not entitled to the source. The problem lies in the other end. Ubiquiti is licensing some code, and not complying with the license, by not providing source. This means they are not covered by the license.
This is plain, simple, copyright infringement. Not stealing, something else. And when you do it for profit, most people agree it's a bad thing. At least in the current context.
There's also another bit that I fail to understand.
If the Chinese Firewall guys wanted to DoS github, they could just do it. Playing synthetic traffic against github, for example.
Instead, we say that they hijacked their users computers, so they could generate traffic that in the end would have to go through the firewall.
From the firewall point of view, that wouldn't be a DDoS, because the attacker is always them, no distribution happens. It doesn't make sense, and it's a lot more work than just doing the DoS attack themselves.
Of course, MITM is something they can do, they might be doing that kind of thing, and hijacking clients computers for other reasons, but for this attack, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
In any case, you would need Amazon to actually enforce it.
While they do have more money for legal fees, they would risk a big PR issue if they tried to prevent some guy from working at Walmart after quitting Amazon. Also, the first guy with such a problem wouldn't have a lot of trouble finding someone to help them with legal fees, if only for the publicity.
This is probably just a scare tactic, to discourage people from leaving them, it is unethical, but not really enforceable.
Does that manual encourage bad code ?