...rippable CDs in the first place (as an aside, I always found the usage of the term "rip" in this context to be somewhat revealing)
May I point out that in order to rip a CD, you need to have a CD in the first place, which probably means that you have bought it.
Ripping a CD is perfectly legal under the current law, DMCA included. It's also perfectly moral, though YMMV -- Your Morals May Vary, of course.
RIAA tries to tell people that it's illegal to make copies of music, but it's a big fat lie. Anyone can make as many copies of his music as he wants. What's illegal is distributing. As long as I don't distribute it, I can rip all my CDs, convert the music to.mp3 or.ogg and do pretty much I want with it.
So I am not sure what exactly do you find revealing about the term "rip".
I would say that instead of sewage, authors (anyone who is creating something) often produce the raw ingredients for a meal--and it is the publisher who "cooks" the meal.
That's WAY overstating the role of the publisher.
The author creates, the publisher applies some final polish and does the gift wrapping. If you really insist on a restaurant metaphor, the author makes the dish and the publisher arranges it on a plate and adds a sprig of parsley on the side.
And, of course, that's only concerning literature. In things like music or painting the publisher has even less input into the final product.
Publishers are needed, no question about it, but saying that they actually "cook the meal" is absurd, IMHO.
If we tossed out coropate personhood, they'd be run just like unincorporated business are--as a partnership among their stockholders
Don't be an idiot. How many people, do you think, will buy stock if it means all their personal assets can be taken for the company's debts? That's what getting rid of corporations means.
PC's do not have correct color output, and never will. No matter high end the PC, the colors never look "right" or balenced on the screen.
Interesting... First of all, the word "never" here is pretty strong. You must have one hell of a crystal ball, right?
Second, I don't understand what are "right" or "balenced" (sic!) colors. The purpose of color-calibrating your equipment is to make sure that the colors on your original are the same as the colors on your monitor are the same as the colors on your print. That's it.
Third, there is no problem with calibrating a PC-based workflow so that it all works very, very nicely. The colors I see on my screen, for example, are a very close match for colors I get on my prints (they'll never be exactly the same since the monitor emits light and a print reflects it).
Fourth, the poster is probably unaware of the concept called "gamma" and thus is clueless that Macs by default have a gamma of 1.8 and PCs by default have a gamma of 2.2. Thus, without gamma correction, images produced on Macs will look wrong on PCs and vice versa. That does not mean, however, that Mac-produced images are somehow intrinsically better. It's just that if you want to look at them on a PC you need to gamma-correct them.
Fifth, the statement that no professionals do layout or photowork on PCs is obvious bullshit. It just ain't true.
Their marketing materials are all you have to go on because there are no other sources of info on the topic of the X3
LOL. The sensor is in production. Cameras which incorporate it exist. People have used these cameras and have taken pictures with them. They have taken a very careful look at these pictures and came to conclusions (sometimes different) about what this new sensor can do well and what it can't do well. They also posted these conclusions (and the pictures) to the web and many vigorous discussions resulted.
And you are telling me there are no other sources of information other than marketing materials??
And no, you are not being trolled, I am just wondering at your willingness to take what is effectively advertising as nothing but truth.
This is Slashdot where flaming to a crisp is finely honed and regularly practiced form of entertainment. Welcome:-)
Besides, the guy IS clueless.
second the X3 claims to reduce Moire patterns
That's true -- there is a certain kind of moire patterns which are an artifact of regular sensors and Foveon does not suffer from them. But saying it gets rid of all moire is... um... incorrect.
becuase it's only on the X3 website, which you clearly have not read
I am not much interested in marketing materials. I am more interested in discussion by clueful people, and that I have read quite a bit.
And by real color, I guess the term 'More Accurate' color should have been used.
Can you please elaborate, in which way and by which measure the three R, G, and B values for each pixel that a Foveon sensor outputs represent a "More Accurate" color as compared to a regular sensor?
It's disheartening to see stranger's ferociously pounce on someone for such a triffle.
It sees a real "color" instead of on red/green/blue (dispersed in fine pixels of course).
Ahem. First of all, a Foveon sensor just stacks the red/green/blue sensors on top of each other instead of putting them side-by-side like conventional Bayerian sensors do. In the digital files that Foveon cameras output, each pixel is still represented by a R-G-B triple.
And second, I am not sure what do you mean by a "real" color. You mean all other digital cameras don't see real color? Our TVs and monitors do not produce real color? etc. etc.
What you don't get is Moire patterns - at all!!
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but moire patterns have nothing to do with digital cameras. They are easy enough to see with a human eye, anyway. You can get a moire pattern on a Foveon just as easily as on a regular sensor.
That is what you probably hate when you say you hate "pixel noise"
Umm... get a clue. Pixel noise has nothing to do with moire. It's NOISE -- more or less random fluctuation is the measurements of light that each sensor spot does. The amount of noise depends on a bunch of factors, such as temperature and the size of pixels on the sensor. That's why astrophotographers cool their CCDs in liquid nitrogen, and that's why professional digital cameras like Canon D1s, D60 and such have hugely lower noise than (relatively) cheapo consumer digicams.
And, of course, the Foveon sensor will also exhibit "pixel noise" -- that a fact of physics and kinda hard to get away from.
As far as I know "fair use" is a defence against the copyright infringement claim. That's it. There is no obligation on the part of the content creator to make it easy, or even possible, for you to exercise fair use.
Sir, you have no proof whatsoever that the people who control our media are Jewish. Please refrain from posting such offensive garbage.
LOL.
First, you should get out of the habit of addressing assholes "sir", and second, do you think that if he were to present proof that yes, they are Jewish, it would make any difference?
I have this on good authority. It may alert them to your presence and cause them to raid your house, but if when they raid the house they find nothing in your posession, you're scott free.
Don't be an idiot.
Do you really want to explain to a jury of regular middle-class people that "Yes, this picture of a 10-year-old being fisted was on my free website, and it came from my IP, but you didn't find it on my hard drive, so na-na na-na-na, you have to let me go free"??
And also, I have it on good authority that you can buy a Brooklin Bridge really cheap...
The best rule to follow is: never say anything in email or in a posting that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know.
There is a better rule. You should never post onto the Usenet/Web anything that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know, or anything that you'd be uncomforable with when it's pulled out of the archives twenty years later.
I know several people who were highly embarassed when Google made available old Usenet postings...
A scan of a single frame of a 35mm film, on a high-end consumer film scanner will create a file... let's see:
The scanner is 4000dpi, so the resulting image is about 4000x6000 pixels. We are working in 16-bit-per-color-channel mode, so that's 6 bytes per single pixel. A bit of multiplication get you 144Mb. As a practical matter, the film frame is slightly smaller so your output TIFF file is about 120Mb in size. That is for a single 35mm film frame.
So raw scans of slightly under 2000 film frames will already hit the 220Gb figure.
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
LOL. I don't have a PVR and don't love it, but I have very strong doubts the cable industry is my friend, anyway.
But is anyone surprised by cable industry's attitude? They (and the most of content industry) really want to sell you "views" -- opportunity to watch (or hear) something once and once only. Want to watch or hear it again? Pay again.
Though it sounds a little bit "big-brothery" for my wireless device to know where I am at all times, I know that it is going to happen anyway.
It's OK for my wireless device to know (and tell others) where I am as long I can turn this service off any time I want to. I'm fine with a cellphone that transmits location info, but only if I can switch off this location transmission and still use the device as a regular cellphone. Otherwise I'll have problems with it.
I can think of TONS of great apps that would be location specific. For instance, a GPS that would tell you where the nearest Pizza Hut is. A Or a two-way radio or other device that also told you WHERE the other person is. Paying tolls automatically is a good one too.
Funny how location-based apps have trouble going beyond the insurmountable problem of locating the nearest Pizza Hut or the great idea of generating pop-up ads on your cell phone any time you walk past a store.
Note that my GPS can tell me where the nearest Pizza Hut is without transmitting my location to anyone.
If you have a two-way radio and you are in contact with that other person, why don't you just ASK him where he is??
Paying tolls also works quite well with very-short-range transmissions and, again, my location is usually stored in a database, but there is no need to transmit to anyone in real-time.
You can't test a nuclear weapon in space - there are treaties that regulate this sort of thing, and they say space has to stay demilitarized.
Sure you can.
First of all space is NOT demilitarized already. US has large amounts of military hardware up there, Russia has somewhat less, and China has less yet.
Second, there MAY be treaties which say that detonating a nuke in near-earth orbit is to be frowned on, but I am fairly sure that if I can get a nuke to one of the asteroids beyond Mars, no one will be objecting much to nuclear explosions over there...
This discussion reminds me of a bunch of 13 year old geeks sitting around the RPG table talking about what they're going to do if giant robots with photon torpedos take over the planet.
Do you find information on how to build a nuclear device in your library?
Yes, of course.
Most (if not all) early nuclear research has been declassified. I would guess that any competent physics grad student can build a crude nuclear device of the Hiroshima type, if supplied with proper tools and materials.
The main reason why we don't have backyard nuclear bombs isn't lack of information on how to construct one. The reason is that it's very hard to get the components, primarily the highly enriched (weapon-grade) uranium and proper triggers.
Only people who need that information should be allowed to it.
Of course. That is why from now on we have instituted a simple procedure that must be followed any time you want to buy a book or read one in a library.
Just submit to the nearest government office the Request For Information Access form (RFIA-1984) together with all the necessary documentation proving that you need the information. In due time the form will be returned to you, stamped "approved" or "rejected". If it has been approved, take this form to your book dealer or library and you will be granted access.
Please be aware that having multiple requests rejected can adversly affect your future.
Y'know, in the MS/RIAA/MPAA/etc. newspeak, the word "security" can mean many different things.
One of the things it means, especially in the Palladium/DRM context, is "security for our software to run and do whatever it wants without you, stupid user, being able to do anything about it". The whole idea of Palladium/"secure computing" is trying to secure my computer against me.
Now, if you think about "security" this way, Mundy's promise to break old apps in the name of security starts to look fairly omnious...
they can and will most likely scratch that itch themself
Now that entirely depends on the perceived cost-benefit analysis (and I am using these terms very broadly -- e.g. "that's a fun thing to do" would count as a huge benefit).
In some cases, people will scratch the itch and develop a solution to their problems. In other cases they won't because the need isn't so great or because the solution is too costly in terms of time/skills.
I am not making a claim that a commercial solution is always the best. Not at all. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, and sometimes it's downright awful. But I am arguing for the freedom for that commercial solution to exist. Choice is good.
the government has granted a private concern exclusive rights to distribute the data.
Well, this is clearly a Bad Thing. If the data were placed in public domain, this wouldn't have happened.:-)
ROTFL. Given that my UID is in low 20,000s and given the fact that I spent maybe half a year at Slashdot as AC before I overcame my distrust of registrations and actually got myself a nym here... if I am astroturfing, I certainly have been doing for a loooong time:-) Oh, and since I made it into the Karma Whoring Fantasy League, I probably was quite good at covering it up:-))
were it not for this evening's rather liberal libation -- a fine Bordeaux a lady friend keeps insisting I have 'just one more glass off' -- I probably wouldn't have mentioned the possibility at all
Man, you do have your priorities screwed up, you know that? Instead of paying attention to your lady friend who so graciously supplied you with a fine red, you are writing an answer to a Slashdot comment...
...Kerberos...
I am quite familiar with Kerberos example. However here you are confused between software and protocols.
Were you to say that open and standard protocols should not be subverted with monopoly power -- I would have said "sure, no problem, that's obvious". But we are not talking about protocols here, we are talking about code.
In the Kerberos example it doesn't matter at all whether MS picked up existing code or reimplemented the whole thing from scratch. What matters is that MS tried to change the open/standard protocols. That was a bad thing and enough people raised a stink for this attempt to fail.
I did not claim that it did [take away your access].... Another strawman, requesting that I defend a claim I am not making [destroying the original code].
Ahem. Allow me to refresh your memory:
You said: "why should you have the "freedom" to take away my access (or usability) of public code by embracing, extending, and destroying it?"
As to usability, this is the same issue of code vs. protocols.
United Kingdom several hundred years ago in a thinly veiled landgrab from which stems the myth of the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons."
You are talking about the fencing movement. I don't really see what it has to do with licensing of intellectual property.
Tragedy of the commons, by the way, is not "so-called". It's a standard situation in game theory with all-too-numerous real-life applications.
Also, lest we forget, freedom is something the constitution intended to afford the people, not coporations or governments.
True. But also not very relevant to the discussion at hand.
The constitution was written to deny the government as much freedom as it could
:-) I think we are in complete agreement on that part. Now only if we could persuade SCOTUS...
In the case of projects and knowledge financed and paid for by public moneys, it is highly inappropriate to permissively allow them to be privatized by private interests.
Now here we disagree. I see nothing wrong with that.
You see, you assume that if the private sector doesn't do it, somebody else will and will provide the code/information/etc. for free. That's not true.
I don't know much about navigational charts, but I've dealt with topo maps. You *can* download the digital data for the topo maps from the government websites. It is free. There is also at least one company which sells basically the same data on CDs. If you have time, bandwidth and skills, you can grab the free data and use it. If you'd rather pay $50-80 for a CD with already collected and somewhat prettified maps, you have that choice as well. I like the fact that there is a choice. Different people with different skillsets, needs, and ideas about the value of their time will choose differently.
If that commercialization of the free data were illegal, there would have been no CDs for sale. Less usefullness. Less choice. All in all a bad thing.
why should you have the "freedom" to take away my access (or usability) of public code by embracing, extending, and destroying it?
Pure handwaving.
Let's consider an example. Let's say some government agency developed some code for image enhancement that it used to improve satellite photos or something like this. This code has been released in public domain.
Now, let's say I picked up this code and reworked it into a Photoshop plug-in, taking the public code as a base (embrace), but also adding extra functionality (extend) so that it's useful for general-purpose photography. I am now selling this plug-in as a closed-source commercial product.
Slashdot Mirror
...rippable CDs in the first place (as an aside, I always found the usage of the term "rip" in this context to be somewhat revealing)
.mp3 or .ogg and do pretty much I want with it.
May I point out that in order to rip a CD, you need to have a CD in the first place, which probably means that you have bought it.
Ripping a CD is perfectly legal under the current law, DMCA included. It's also perfectly moral, though YMMV -- Your Morals May Vary, of course.
RIAA tries to tell people that it's illegal to make copies of music, but it's a big fat lie. Anyone can make as many copies of his music as he wants. What's illegal is distributing. As long as I don't distribute it, I can rip all my CDs, convert the music to
So I am not sure what exactly do you find revealing about the term "rip".
I would say that instead of sewage, authors (anyone who is creating something) often produce the raw ingredients for a meal--and it is the publisher who "cooks" the meal.
That's WAY overstating the role of the publisher.
The author creates, the publisher applies some final polish and does the gift wrapping. If you really insist on a restaurant metaphor, the author makes the dish and the publisher arranges it on a plate and adds a sprig of parsley on the side.
And, of course, that's only concerning literature. In things like music or painting the publisher has even less input into the final product.
Publishers are needed, no question about it, but saying that they actually "cook the meal" is absurd, IMHO.
If we tossed out coropate personhood, they'd be run just like unincorporated business are--as a partnership among their stockholders
Don't be an idiot. How many people, do you think, will buy stock if it means all their personal assets can be taken for the company's debts? That's what getting rid of corporations means.
PC's do not have correct color output, and never will. No matter high end the PC, the colors never look "right" or balenced on the screen.
Interesting... First of all, the word "never" here is pretty strong. You must have one hell of a crystal ball, right?
Second, I don't understand what are "right" or "balenced" (sic!) colors. The purpose of color-calibrating your equipment is to make sure that the colors on your original are the same as the colors on your monitor are the same as the colors on your print. That's it.
Third, there is no problem with calibrating a PC-based workflow so that it all works very, very nicely. The colors I see on my screen, for example, are a very close match for colors I get on my prints (they'll never be exactly the same since the monitor emits light and a print reflects it).
Fourth, the poster is probably unaware of the concept called "gamma" and thus is clueless that Macs by default have a gamma of 1.8 and PCs by default have a gamma of 2.2. Thus, without gamma correction, images produced on Macs will look wrong on PCs and vice versa. That does not mean, however, that Mac-produced images are somehow intrinsically better. It's just that if you want to look at them on a PC you need to gamma-correct them.
Fifth, the statement that no professionals do layout or photowork on PCs is obvious bullshit. It just ain't true.
Sigh.
Film still rules for taking pictures in low-light. Digital cameras just can't handle low-light situations, by their very nature.
Go here and look. That's an image taken by a digital camera (Canon D60) with a four minute exposure.
Still think digitals cannot handle low-light situations?
Plus, the speed of film is better. Digital cameras aren't very good for action photography.
Ah, so that's why all pro sports shooters have switched to digital, I see...
Get a clue.
Their marketing materials are all you have to go on because there are no other sources of info on the topic of the X3
LOL. The sensor is in production. Cameras which incorporate it exist. People have used these cameras and have taken pictures with them. They have taken a very careful look at these pictures and came to conclusions (sometimes different) about what this new sensor can do well and what it can't do well. They also posted these conclusions (and the pictures) to the web and many vigorous discussions resulted.
And you are telling me there are no other sources of information other than marketing materials??
And no, you are not being trolled, I am just wondering at your willingness to take what is effectively advertising as nothing but truth.
See e.g. here.
A really easy way to see moire is take two pieces of semi-transparent fabric (like tulle) and overlay them on top of each other.
First off, you need not be so rude to others
:-)
This is Slashdot where flaming to a crisp is finely honed and regularly practiced form of entertainment. Welcome
Besides, the guy IS clueless.
second the X3 claims to reduce Moire patterns
That's true -- there is a certain kind of moire patterns which are an artifact of regular sensors and Foveon does not suffer from them. But saying it gets rid of all moire is... um... incorrect.
becuase it's only on the X3 website, which you clearly have not read
I am not much interested in marketing materials. I am more interested in discussion by clueful people, and that I have read quite a bit.
And by real color, I guess the term 'More Accurate' color should have been used.
Can you please elaborate, in which way and by which measure the three R, G, and B values for each pixel that a Foveon sensor outputs represent a "More Accurate" color as compared to a regular sensor?
It's disheartening to see stranger's ferociously pounce on someone for such a triffle.
LOL. Ferocious pounces are great fun. Rrrrrr....
Bullshit, pardon my French.
It sees a real "color" instead of on red/green/blue (dispersed in fine pixels of course).
Ahem. First of all, a Foveon sensor just stacks the red/green/blue sensors on top of each other instead of putting them side-by-side like conventional Bayerian sensors do. In the digital files that Foveon cameras output, each pixel is still represented by a R-G-B triple.
And second, I am not sure what do you mean by a "real" color. You mean all other digital cameras don't see real color? Our TVs and monitors do not produce real color? etc. etc.
What you don't get is Moire patterns - at all!!
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but moire patterns have nothing to do with digital cameras. They are easy enough to see with a human eye, anyway. You can get a moire pattern on a Foveon just as easily as on a regular sensor.
That is what you probably hate when you say you hate "pixel noise"
Umm... get a clue. Pixel noise has nothing to do with moire. It's NOISE -- more or less random fluctuation is the measurements of light that each sensor spot does. The amount of noise depends on a bunch of factors, such as temperature and the size of pixels on the sensor. That's why astrophotographers cool their CCDs in liquid nitrogen, and that's why professional digital cameras like Canon D1s, D60 and such have hugely lower noise than (relatively) cheapo consumer digicams.
And, of course, the Foveon sensor will also exhibit "pixel noise" -- that a fact of physics and kinda hard to get away from.
There is a statutory right to fair use
Statutory right?? Please quote the statute.
As far as I know "fair use" is a defence against the copyright infringement claim. That's it. There is no obligation on the part of the content creator to make it easy, or even possible, for you to exercise fair use.
Sir, you have no proof whatsoever that the people who control our media are Jewish. Please refrain from posting such offensive garbage.
LOL.
First, you should get out of the habit of addressing assholes "sir", and second, do you think that if he were to present proof that yes, they are Jewish, it would make any difference?
I have this on good authority. It may alert them to your presence and cause them to raid your house, but if when they raid the house they find nothing in your posession, you're scott free.
Don't be an idiot.
Do you really want to explain to a jury of regular middle-class people that "Yes, this picture of a 10-year-old being fisted was on my free website, and it came from my IP, but you didn't find it on my hard drive, so na-na na-na-na, you have to let me go free"??
And also, I have it on good authority that you can buy a Brooklin Bridge really cheap...
The best rule to follow is: never say anything in email or in a posting that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know.
There is a better rule. You should never post onto the Usenet/Web anything that you would mind saying in person to everyone you know, or anything that you'd be uncomforable with when it's pulled out of the archives twenty years later.
I know several people who were highly embarassed when Google made available old Usenet postings...
Who the fuck has 220GB of personal data?
And what's so weird about it?
A scan of a single frame of a 35mm film, on a high-end consumer film scanner will create a file... let's see:
The scanner is 4000dpi, so the resulting image is about 4000x6000 pixels. We are working in 16-bit-per-color-channel mode, so that's 6 bytes per single pixel. A bit of multiplication get you 144Mb. As a practical matter, the film frame is slightly smaller so your output TIFF file is about 120Mb in size. That is for a single 35mm film frame.
So raw scans of slightly under 2000 film frames will already hit the 220Gb figure.
Still think it's a ridiculous number?
If you love your PVR, the cable industry is not your friend.
LOL. I don't have a PVR and don't love it, but I have very strong doubts the cable industry is my friend, anyway.
But is anyone surprised by cable industry's attitude? They (and the most of content industry) really want to sell you "views" -- opportunity to watch (or hear) something once and once only. Want to watch or hear it again? Pay again.
Though it sounds a little bit "big-brothery" for my wireless device to know where I am at all times, I know that it is going to happen anyway.
It's OK for my wireless device to know (and tell others) where I am as long I can turn this service off any time I want to. I'm fine with a cellphone that transmits location info, but only if I can switch off this location transmission and still use the device as a regular cellphone. Otherwise I'll have problems with it.
I can think of TONS of great apps that would be location specific. For instance, a GPS that would tell you where the nearest Pizza Hut is. A Or a two-way radio or other device that also told you WHERE the other person is. Paying tolls automatically is a good one too.
Funny how location-based apps have trouble going beyond the insurmountable problem of locating the nearest Pizza Hut or the great idea of generating pop-up ads on your cell phone any time you walk past a store.
Note that my GPS can tell me where the nearest Pizza Hut is without transmitting my location to anyone.
If you have a two-way radio and you are in contact with that other person, why don't you just ASK him where he is??
Paying tolls also works quite well with very-short-range transmissions and, again, my location is usually stored in a database, but there is no need to transmit to anyone in real-time.
.jpg for photos
.mpg for videos
.wav for audio (or .mp3 or .ogg)
HTML for the organization and presentation of all this.
Why in the world would you need a kodak "scraps" program and a polaroid "memories" program, etc.etc.?
You can't test a nuclear weapon in space - there are treaties that regulate this sort of thing, and they say space has to stay demilitarized.
Sure you can.
First of all space is NOT demilitarized already. US has large amounts of military hardware up there, Russia has somewhat less, and China has less yet.
Second, there MAY be treaties which say that detonating a nuke in near-earth orbit is to be frowned on, but I am fairly sure that if I can get a nuke to one of the asteroids beyond Mars, no one will be objecting much to nuclear explosions over there...
This discussion reminds me of a bunch of 13 year old geeks sitting around the RPG table talking about what they're going to do if giant robots with photon torpedos take over the planet.
As opposed to which discussion on Slashdot??
Do you find information on how to build a nuclear device in your library?
Yes, of course.
Most (if not all) early nuclear research has been declassified. I would guess that any competent physics grad student can build a crude nuclear device of the Hiroshima type, if supplied with proper tools and materials.
The main reason why we don't have backyard nuclear bombs isn't lack of information on how to construct one. The reason is that it's very hard to get the components, primarily the highly enriched (weapon-grade) uranium and proper triggers.
Only people who need that information should be allowed to it.
Of course. That is why from now on we have instituted a simple procedure that must be followed any time you want to buy a book or read one in a library.
Just submit to the nearest government office the Request For Information Access form (RFIA-1984) together with all the necessary documentation proving that you need the information. In due time the form will be returned to you, stamped "approved" or "rejected". If it has been approved, take this form to your book dealer or library and you will be granted access.
Please be aware that having multiple requests rejected can adversly affect your future.
Have a pleasant day.
Y'know, in the MS/RIAA/MPAA/etc. newspeak, the word "security" can mean many different things.
One of the things it means, especially in the Palladium/DRM context, is "security for our software to run and do whatever it wants without you, stupid user, being able to do anything about it". The whole idea of Palladium/"secure computing" is trying to secure my computer against me.
Now, if you think about "security" this way, Mundy's promise to break old apps in the name of security starts to look fairly omnious...
they can and will most likely scratch that itch themself
:-)
Now that entirely depends on the perceived cost-benefit analysis (and I am using these terms very broadly -- e.g. "that's a fun thing to do" would count as a huge benefit).
In some cases, people will scratch the itch and develop a solution to their problems. In other cases they won't because the need isn't so great or because the solution is too costly in terms of time/skills.
I am not making a claim that a commercial solution is always the best. Not at all. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, and sometimes it's downright awful. But I am arguing for the freedom for that commercial solution to exist. Choice is good.
the government has granted a private concern exclusive rights to distribute the data.
Well, this is clearly a Bad Thing. If the data were placed in public domain, this wouldn't have happened.
ROTFL. Given that my UID is in low 20,000s and given the fact that I spent maybe half a year at Slashdot as AC before I overcame my distrust of registrations and actually got myself a nym here... if I am astroturfing, I certainly have been doing for a loooong time
were it not for this evening's rather liberal libation -- a fine Bordeaux a lady friend keeps insisting I have 'just one more glass off' -- I probably wouldn't have mentioned the possibility at all
Man, you do have your priorities screwed up, you know that? Instead of paying attention to your lady friend who so graciously supplied you with a fine red, you are writing an answer to a Slashdot comment...
I am quite familiar with Kerberos example. However here you are confused between software and protocols.
Were you to say that open and standard protocols should not be subverted with monopoly power -- I would have said "sure, no problem, that's obvious". But we are not talking about protocols here, we are talking about code.
In the Kerberos example it doesn't matter at all whether MS picked up existing code or reimplemented the whole thing from scratch. What matters is that MS tried to change the open/standard protocols. That was a bad thing and enough people raised a stink for this attempt to fail.
I did not claim that it did [take away your access].... Another strawman, requesting that I defend a claim I am not making [destroying the original code].
Ahem. Allow me to refresh your memory:
You said: "why should you have the "freedom" to take away my access (or usability) of public code by embracing, extending, and destroying it?"
As to usability, this is the same issue of code vs. protocols.
United Kingdom several hundred years ago in a thinly veiled landgrab from which stems the myth of the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons."
You are talking about the fencing movement. I don't really see what it has to do with licensing of intellectual property.
Tragedy of the commons, by the way, is not "so-called". It's a standard situation in game theory with all-too-numerous real-life applications.
Also, lest we forget, freedom is something the constitution intended to afford the people, not coporations or governments.
True. But also not very relevant to the discussion at hand.
The constitution was written to deny the government as much freedom as it could
:-) I think we are in complete agreement on that part. Now only if we could persuade SCOTUS...
In the case of projects and knowledge financed and paid for by public moneys, it is highly inappropriate to permissively allow them to be privatized by private interests.
Now here we disagree. I see nothing wrong with that.
You see, you assume that if the private sector doesn't do it, somebody else will and will provide the code/information/etc. for free. That's not true.
I don't know much about navigational charts, but I've dealt with topo maps. You *can* download the digital data for the topo maps from the government websites. It is free. There is also at least one company which sells basically the same data on CDs. If you have time, bandwidth and skills, you can grab the free data and use it. If you'd rather pay $50-80 for a CD with already collected and somewhat prettified maps, you have that choice as well. I like the fact that there is a choice. Different people with different skillsets, needs, and ideas about the value of their time will choose differently.
If that commercialization of the free data were illegal, there would have been no CDs for sale. Less usefullness. Less choice. All in all a bad thing.
why should you have the "freedom" to take away my access (or usability) of public code by embracing, extending, and destroying it?
Pure handwaving.
Let's consider an example. Let's say some government agency developed some code for image enhancement that it used to improve satellite photos or something like this. This code has been released in public domain.
Now, let's say I picked up this code and reworked it into a Photoshop plug-in, taking the public code as a base (embrace), but also adding extra functionality (extend) so that it's useful for general-purpose photography. I am now selling this plug-in as a closed-source commercial product.
Please explain how this
(1) took away your access to the original PD code
(2) took away the usability of the original code
(3) destroyed the original code?