There is a complete course on programming taught using the scheme language available from Ars Digita University, including, video (downloadable or streamable), problem sets, solutions, etc. It is closely based on the MIT course "6001 Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs."
"Does compensated usually mean, "People get your stuff, and you get jack shit?"
No. "Compensated" usually means "People *pay* for your stuff, the record companies *make a profit*, and after you pay back your loan to them, *THEN* you get jack shit." This license is trying to change all that.
This looks really interesting- it seems to be oddly silent on the subject of what "external" use would be- I am guessing that any available GPL'd software that had more than one application would fall under this category.
Only tricky part to watch out for - you can't get credit unless there is substantial uncertainty about recouping the profits from the research. The intent of this provision seems to be to encourage only real innovations in turbulent markets (where they need the most help), but what if they took it the other way? What I mean is, what if some establishment types said "well, if you give your software away, there ceases being any uncertainty about whether you'll make a profit, but rather a complete impossibility of recouping your costs!"
Of course I don't think that way, but lawyers are funny about interpreting the law sometimes.
Bryguy
Ok, let's play the "pretend this guy isn't really a troll" game.
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
There are two things wrong with this. Let's unpack some assumptions, shall we?
1. Corporations do not have 'aims'. Corporations, legal fictions notwithstanding, are not people- they are the tools of people. Specifically, corporations are a legal shield from liability for the actions of the capital of the people who control the company, as well as the control of the capital others invest in the company (making it functionally theirs).
2. To the extent that we can imagine corporations to have aims, they are not noble. Corporations want to make money, but the desire to make money is not noble in itself- in fact, the desire of the individuals who make a living by making themselves dependent on these corporations often find that their personal ethics are in conflict with the "noble" moneymaking aim of the corporation, so they engage in activity that they would never engage in for their own sake for fear of losing their jobs. Ask any salesperson, any pr person.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people.
I'll agree with this statement, except to the extent that corporations *do* have an interest in politics and hurting people when their bottom line is in some way affected by it. Which is pretty much all of the time. See the debate over campaign financing, see the DMCA, see the Sonny Bono copyright extensions, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, paint company defenses of the safety of lead paint back when Gale Norton was a lobbyist for them, etc, etc.
in short, we should live in a society of limited government. If the functions that government presently executes, such as defense of the realm and policing the streets, were carried out by private corporations at the behest of out citizens, everything would be much fairer. Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
1. How do you figure? I'd say your assertion could use some support.
2. Do you suppose that if the government contracts out prisons, that putting more people in prison will be profitable? Is making a profit still noble then? Will the invisible hand of the economy find an ideal economic point between the supply of prison labor and the demand of the few consumers outside of prison? Is this better than our 'unlimited government?'
3. If the most cost-effective way to maintain order is to strip citizens of their rights and kill the troublemakers, do you suppose that the nobility of the profit motive will make it ok for corporations to protect their profits? What could be more noble than making an honest buck and keeping the cycle of consumerism going so that the only thing that makes our society work is capital?
It's amazing how fast dumb points of view are excluded in a moderation system.
If this keeps up, eventually dumb perspectives will have no voice, and only intelligent and interesting perspectives will get a fair hearing. This can only mean one thing: better ideas.
Lets tear this meritocracy down before it gets out of hand!
If you want to read on your palm/visor, try CSpotRun, it's awesome- it's GPL'd, you can set it to read in landscape format and it's got a little teleprompter-type setting that lets the text autoscroll at whatever speed you like so you don't even have to push buttons once you start. It goes REALLY fast if you have afterburner installed:)
Philip Greenspun has been arguing for something like this for a while now. Ars Digita University may not have a physical presence next year, but it's good to see MIT setting an example for other schools, even if it is done in such baby steps.
There has been quite a flap lately over teachers wanting to restrict the information disseminated in their courses, to make everything proprietary and closed, but there's a fundamental tie between educational ideals and the free flow of information that can and should be exploited to improve the world's access to knowledge. To the extent that MIT's curriculum is distinctive and may want to influence the curriculums of other schools, the best way to make the world see how good your ideas are is a very old idea- make them public and subject them to peer review. If your ideas are effective, they'll be widely adopted. I think MIT is doing something very smart- they want people to see why they have a reputation for technical excellence.
It's ok, the Republicans won't censor it- George Lucas will just release a new version in which a big gun on the planet of Alderaan fires first at the death star and misses, then the death star fires back in self defense. Then it'll all be ok.
Obi-Wan will say "I felt a disturbance in the force as if a million souls cried out in pain and then vanished- but they had it coming to them just like Greedo did".
What an injustice! This guy is obviously the most clued-in member of congress and even he has no idea what his law is doing! This will be great fodder for debate if Lessig and Valenti ever throw down again. I can see it now: "Well Larry, I'm just a simple country boy, I don't get it either, by gosh..."
Those who moderate comments on Slashdot, Kuro5shin and other community-based weblogs may downgrade content they don't find worthwhile in a genuine effort to express their thoughts as readers and participants -- a freedom no newspaper reader or television viewer has. One person's new freedom is another's' censorship, though. Congress has required, for instance, that schools and libraries who want to take advantage of lucrative e-Rate funding for their networking projects employ content-filtering software. The same basic mechanism (content is chosen before it reaches the viewer), but with very different motivations. As various methods and reasons for content filtering spread, they bring with them some dark clouds."
The basic mechanism is NOT the same. In one case, no matter how low a comment gets moderated, you can still get it by changing your own filter settings. In another, someone has made it IMPOSSIBLE to reach some content through the available interface. One preserves a filtering function that allows us to enjoy our freedoms more, the other eliminates our freedoms to make our own decisions about content if we don't like the ones the authorities have made. Very different indeed.
You can find the commons for.10 apiece in most major cities. It's still a very fun game this way, and more balanced since the really powerful cards are generally rare.
Bryguy
There is one very good thing about this development, and that is that having an NSA-approved distribution of linux will make it very tough for government agencies to say that linux doesn't meet their security needs, or that Windoze does.
Have one click on the web take you to a "zero click" telnet session where a dynamically generated script buys the item for you then closes the session.
Damn I wish I had some mod points, this is ingenious.
The companies, in order to take credit for your work at home, ought to be LIABLE for you when you work at home. If you're even THINKING about work while skiing, if they own your idea, THEY OWN YOUR GOD DAMN LIABILITY when you break your leg because you were so excited about the idea you missed the tree!
I see what's really going on here. Harlan is trying to generate some piggy-back publicity on the coattails of the Napster-Gnutella flap. It has nothing to do with ideas, and everything to do with creating name recognition to increase sales of his books.
When the profit motive is all you have to motivate art, you get cranks like this guy.
I am certain that others can do a better job of this that I can, but here's the beginnings of a list of things Microsoft has tried to copy:
Internet Explorer- Mosaic/Netscape
Microsoft Messenger- AOL Instant Messenger
Winamp/Realplayer- Windows Media Player
Windows - MacOS
DOS- Unix
MSMoney- Quicken
MSWord- Word Perfect
Win95Kernel- OS/2
Outlook- flu sufferer's used kleenexes(tm)
Innovative Marketing- The Borg ("Star Trek")
You are saying that criminals will communicate so we have to regulate communication.
What if we had the technology to perform surveillance on every conversation everyone had anywhere, ever? And to record them forever? The logic of your argument seems to indicate that this would be a good thing, lest we miss a pedophile or two. To prejudge the content of communications is to give up a lot of liberty for not very much security.
What if the governments are the only ones allowed to use cryptography? Do you really trust them that much?
Physical property, once exchanged, is still held by only one person.
IP, on the other hand, can be given and kept at the same time since the cost of copying digital data is essentially zero, and once you have a perfect copy, I haven't had to give mine up to give it to you.
In other words, we are creating artificial scarcity to make *intellectual* property act more like physical property because that's what we're used to. This is, to put it mildly, extremely stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
The text for the course is available here.
This was pretty much all I did last October.
Enjoy.
Bryguy
What I want to know is, if Tito is allowed to take his CD player into space, why do I have to turn off my palm pilot during takeoff?
Bryguy
No. "Compensated" usually means "People *pay* for your stuff, the record companies *make a profit*, and after you pay back your loan to them, *THEN* you get jack shit." This license is trying to change all that.
Bryguy
GATTACA is a set of letters that can appear in DNA. There is no I in DNA. Bryguy -Nor is there an I in Team, or else it would be, well, Tiam.
This looks really interesting- it seems to be oddly silent on the subject of what "external" use would be- I am guessing that any available GPL'd software that had more than one application would fall under this category.
Only tricky part to watch out for - you can't get credit unless there is substantial uncertainty about recouping the profits from the research. The intent of this provision seems to be to encourage only real innovations in turbulent markets (where they need the most help), but what if they took it the other way? What I mean is, what if some establishment types said "well, if you give your software away, there ceases being any uncertainty about whether you'll make a profit, but rather a complete impossibility of recouping your costs!"
Of course I don't think that way, but lawyers are funny about interpreting the law sometimes.
Bryguy
Corporations have an innocent and noble aim, to make money.
There are two things wrong with this. Let's unpack some assumptions, shall we?
1. Corporations do not have 'aims'. Corporations, legal fictions notwithstanding, are not people- they are the tools of people. Specifically, corporations are a legal shield from liability for the actions of the capital of the people who control the company, as well as the control of the capital others invest in the company (making it functionally theirs).
2. To the extent that we can imagine corporations to have aims, they are not noble. Corporations want to make money, but the desire to make money is not noble in itself- in fact, the desire of the individuals who make a living by making themselves dependent on these corporations often find that their personal ethics are in conflict with the "noble" moneymaking aim of the corporation, so they engage in activity that they would never engage in for their own sake for fear of losing their jobs. Ask any salesperson, any pr person.
They have no interest in advancing political agendas or using that information to harm people.
I'll agree with this statement, except to the extent that corporations *do* have an interest in politics and hurting people when their bottom line is in some way affected by it. Which is pretty much all of the time. See the debate over campaign financing, see the DMCA, see the Sonny Bono copyright extensions, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, paint company defenses of the safety of lead paint back when Gale Norton was a lobbyist for them, etc, etc.
in short, we should live in a society of limited government. If the functions that government presently executes, such as defense of the realm and policing the streets, were carried out by private corporations at the behest of out citizens, everything would be much fairer. Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
1. How do you figure? I'd say your assertion could use some support.
2. Do you suppose that if the government contracts out prisons, that putting more people in prison will be profitable? Is making a profit still noble then? Will the invisible hand of the economy find an ideal economic point between the supply of prison labor and the demand of the few consumers outside of prison? Is this better than our 'unlimited government?'
3. If the most cost-effective way to maintain order is to strip citizens of their rights and kill the troublemakers, do you suppose that the nobility of the profit motive will make it ok for corporations to protect their profits? What could be more noble than making an honest buck and keeping the cycle of consumerism going so that the only thing that makes our society work is capital?
Just wondering,
Bryguy
It's amazing how fast dumb points of view are excluded in a moderation system.
If this keeps up, eventually dumb perspectives will have no voice, and only intelligent and interesting perspectives will get a fair hearing. This can only mean one thing: better ideas.
Lets tear this meritocracy down before it gets out of hand!
:)
bryguy
There has been quite a flap lately over teachers wanting to restrict the information disseminated in their courses, to make everything proprietary and closed, but there's a fundamental tie between educational ideals and the free flow of information that can and should be exploited to improve the world's access to knowledge. To the extent that MIT's curriculum is distinctive and may want to influence the curriculums of other schools, the best way to make the world see how good your ideas are is a very old idea- make them public and subject them to peer review. If your ideas are effective, they'll be widely adopted. I think MIT is doing something very smart- they want people to see why they have a reputation for technical excellence.
It's ok, the Republicans won't censor it- George Lucas will just release a new version in which a big gun on the planet of Alderaan fires first at the death star and misses, then the death star fires back in self defense. Then it'll all be ok.
Obi-Wan will say "I felt a disturbance in the force as if a million souls cried out in pain and then vanished- but they had it coming to them just like Greedo did".
Bryguy
Bryguy
Those who moderate comments on Slashdot, Kuro5shin and other community-based weblogs may downgrade content they don't find worthwhile in a genuine effort to express their thoughts as readers and participants -- a freedom no newspaper reader or television viewer has. One person's new freedom is another's' censorship, though. Congress has required, for instance, that schools and libraries who want to take advantage of lucrative e-Rate funding for their networking projects employ content-filtering software. The same basic mechanism (content is chosen before it reaches the viewer), but with very different motivations. As various methods and reasons for content filtering spread, they bring with them some dark clouds."
The basic mechanism is NOT the same. In one case, no matter how low a comment gets moderated, you can still get it by changing your own filter settings. In another, someone has made it IMPOSSIBLE to reach some content through the available interface. One preserves a filtering function that allows us to enjoy our freedoms more, the other eliminates our freedoms to make our own decisions about content if we don't like the ones the authorities have made. Very different indeed.
Bryguy
Terror
1B
Destroy target nonblack creature. That creature can not be regenerated this turn.
Ah, that's better. Wonder if I have enough swamps left for my lord of the pit...
:)
You can find the commons for .10 apiece in most major cities. It's still a very fun game this way, and more balanced since the really powerful cards are generally rare.
Bryguy
There is one very good thing about this development, and that is that having an NSA-approved distribution of linux will make it very tough for government agencies to say that linux doesn't meet their security needs, or that Windoze does.
Bring it on.
Damn I wish I had some mod points, this is ingenious.
The companies, in order to take credit for your work at home, ought to be LIABLE for you when you work at home. If you're even THINKING about work while skiing, if they own your idea, THEY OWN YOUR GOD DAMN LIABILITY when you break your leg because you were so excited about the idea you missed the tree!
Bryguy
I see what's really going on here. Harlan is trying to generate some piggy-back publicity on the coattails of the Napster-Gnutella flap. It has nothing to do with ideas, and everything to do with creating name recognition to increase sales of his books.
When the profit motive is all you have to motivate art, you get cranks like this guy.
Bryguy
Cue James Earl Jones ...
Cue music ...
This...
is the Time-Warner Propaganda Network.
When Neverwinter Nights AND the newest ID fps are both available for linux, I will buy them both and eliminate my windows partition forever.
Bryguy
Internet Explorer- Mosaic/Netscape
Microsoft Messenger- AOL Instant Messenger Winamp/Realplayer- Windows Media Player Windows - MacOS
DOS- Unix
MSMoney- Quicken
MSWord- Word Perfect
Win95Kernel- OS/2
Outlook- flu sufferer's used kleenexes(tm)
Innovative Marketing- The Borg ("Star Trek")
What have I missed :)
What if we had the technology to perform surveillance on every conversation everyone had anywhere, ever? And to record them forever? The logic of your argument seems to indicate that this would be a good thing, lest we miss a pedophile or two. To prejudge the content of communications is to give up a lot of liberty for not very much security.
What if the governments are the only ones allowed to use cryptography? Do you really trust them that much?
There is a meaningful difference.
Physical property, once exchanged, is still held by only one person.
IP, on the other hand, can be given and kept at the same time since the cost of copying digital data is essentially zero, and once you have a perfect copy, I haven't had to give mine up to give it to you.
In other words, we are creating artificial scarcity to make *intellectual* property act more like physical property because that's what we're used to. This is, to put it mildly, extremely stupid.
Bryguy
(I think...)
Bryguy