"US Universities have been especially anti-American since the '60s."
Ok, define "anti-American". What is an American? Is it any U.S. citizen? illegals? But then again, we all have different beliefs. You pick a few instances, of which none can be best decribed using the term "anti-American", and then conclude what? Your not thinking too straight. During WWII in Germany, was a Jew anti-German, was a Nazi anti-German, was an American citizen living in Germany anti-German? Do you see my point? I hope so. There are people of many many many beliefs that both attend and work at Universities.
You can not treat a University like an individual anymore than you can treat a company like an individual (no matter how it looks legally), or else you are ignoring reality. A University is an institution composed of individuals. Treat it for what it is, and stay away from treating it like one single person.
Do NOT generalize based on a few cases, because one can produce far more cases against those posts you have just made that paint a very different picture.
There is far too much generalizing going on in/.
Btw, you need to understand, that there are individuals in the U.S. government that would love to undermine the power of Universities, especially when it comes to some of the things being taught that are in direct conflict with their particular goals. Antiwar demonstrations have originated from Universities very often, and not just in the U.S. If you think hard enough, you might understand some of the reasons why.
A few nutcases among the millions is your argument? Would you like me to describe you based solely on a few of your flaws?
Re:To hack or not to hack, that is the question!
on
Hacking - Art or Science?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As insightful as your post may be to some, I could at the very same time fit hacking into your view of what hacking is not.
"However, expressing it as hacking means that you're creating short term or disruptive solutions rather than long term solutions that will last. When hacking meets the discipline of Engineering, all hell breaks loose."
What is long-term? Days, months, years, decades? Does it not depend on the problem? Engineering is no more discipline than it is hacking away at problems. Like two sides to a coin, engineering goes beyond a formula or equation. It is about using the formulas, equations, and definitions WITH our ability to just hack away at a problem. Engineering, like hacking, is like science and art. Neither is the other, and just either doesn't work.
"So in short, leave the hacking in college."
That is completely backwards. In college you learn the formulas, the equations, etc. In life, you hack, with what you know.
First of all, your picking out small examples and then generalizing out of them. Your doing it a lot.
"It just ticks me off that pirates don't just admit what they do."
Umm, ok everyone, start postong "I am a pirate, I sail the savage seas, and I download material covered by the U.S. copyright" to make this kid happy. Well, I'm upset because you won't admit that your eating too much sugar, won't get off Ritalin, and that your posts are full of your opinions about what other people supposedly think.
"...where everything the RIAA does is evil, going after individual infringers (which is what Slashdot editors and readers said the RIAA should do five years ago) to protect your own copyrighted materials is somehow evil, etc."
There is a difference between a kid downloading a song from another kid as opposed to some criminal enterprise that mass produces the copyrighted material and sells it for a profit. When people point out the evil things the RIAA does, it seems to fly right over the heads of those that stick to the "infringing is stealing" logic. One needs to take a realistic view on this topic, and constistantly confusing "breaking copyright law" with "stealing" is a major obstacle in finally getting past the kneejerk reaction posts. When you get into this subject further, it leads you into philosophy, so I won't go too far. If you wish to argue the merits of the copyright law, then by all means do. But enough of this grumpy parading on Slashdot.
People are upset, because the RIAA is both defending the law in a very morally questionable way and continue to make the law worse (they aren't the only ones).
"You know, independent artists. Those guys you claim to be fighting for are only on places like iTunes."
Again your talking about things you just do not understand, and pulling statements quite literally out of your ass. iTunes is definitely NOT the ONLY place for independent artists. In fact, the RIAA has tried to stop independent artists and labels from becoming more prominent. That is one of their biggest worries. Why? Think about it. What is the RIAA? I can assure you they are not there to protect the independent artists and labels out there, hence the reason they are called independent. The RIAA is in the business of protecting the interests of those it serves. Who does it serve you ask? Not the artists. Not the consumers. Here are the five major ones they support Sony, EMI, UMG, Time Warner, and BMG.
You claim all these various arguments are excuses, but like I said before, your picking out small examples. There is a truth behind those arguments. Instead of just flat out claiming that they are excuses, look into it. Turn on the radio to one mainstream station (RIAA friendly station, not independant) and listen to it for a week. Then come back and complain about it:).
If your really so upset about artists not getting paid. Do something. Change the system. Because trying to change all the people to follow the old ugly system, would be naive.
There is a very good reason a very large portion of the IT workforce is at the very least upset about Microsoft. The very foundation of the company was law, business, and getting away with things that just fell right below the law somehow. They have continued in that tradition. Microsoft probably owes its very existance to a few of these unethical practices. Sure Microsoft (essentially the wealthiest of Microsoft) has donated lots of money to various organizations, or even created their own. But there is no need for damaging behavior that hurts us all. By failing to work with the market and using whatever means necessary to simply stay ahead and grow ever more hungry and greedy, they hurt IT and other areas as well. So yea, of course most of us hate Microsoft in some certain way, hoping they will stop or the law we can all agree to follow is enforced on them. Yea, you can call me a Microsoft basher. They really are full of crap and deserving of it too.
So why do we still use their products? Well, that is the funny part...
Re:Education Sucks in the US? That's news to me!
on
Improving Education?
·
· Score: 1
"I've got a real issue with people who make statements like this."
Sounds like a great start to a very opinionated post.
"The system is only as good as the people using it."
There is a limit to how well a badly functioning tool can be used.
"Education in the US doesn't suck. Our culture sucks."
Can you be any more obvious about your opinions? And so general. Our culture sucks? As in the entire culture? Everything about it? or just certain parts? Your not that negative a person all around are you?
"Kids who skip grades and push ahead are ostracized not just by their peers but by their peers parents as well."
Oh now I see. A small percentage of kids doing really well are the big problem. Somehow we are not paying enough attention to these so called prodigys, right?
In general, your entire post is about blaming every individual that does not fit into the current system of education. A majority of students never make it through college, and a very large percentage never even graduate high school. Yet somehow you would like to convince us all that we are to blame every individual student that does poorly? Which would be a very large majority of the student population. And still, the education system in the U.S. does not suck? Then please do tell, what would you decribe as a school system that does suck?
Your entire argument goes off into blaming the individual for a system that is obviously a disaster in terms of what most people would consider a decent institution for education.
Your worst statement of all is:
"If our system "sucks" so much, why are there SO many successful people who went through the system?"
You do realize how many "SO many" is right? Also, you do realize how many successful people did NOT go through the system right? I rest my case.
There are many reasons why the system is not good. You have only pointed out a very narrow view of what you see as the problem. But it goes farther and deeper than that. The only way of solving it is one step at a time. Simply blaming anyone and everyone is just a way out of the discussion. What about YOU! Because YOU are the one most in control of YOU! Then again, one person alone can not solve such a huge problem. So we must all work together to solve it. And trust me, there are many problems in our system of education.
You really do have issues. You sound like a religious nut. Your warmongering. What the hell is wrong with you?
Do you listen to all the bullshit spouted off by the powerful interests that would LOVE to go to an all out war with the middle east? You have no apparent wisdom when it comes to understanding the thoughts and actions of the wealthy. They do not think like the average American, they influence them (as much as they can). Most to all Muslims are little different than your average Christian with some minor cultural differences.
To create hate you first find something you don't like about another religion/people. From there you find more reason to hate them, and more, and more, and more. Escalating into a war between two people, that by the time they realize what it was they first argued about is too late, because many die, and the next kill becomes about avenging the death of your brothers and sisters.
If you don't believe in peace, then my friend, you are terrorist.
Actually, think about it this way. Cancer is something normal. Healthy people will clean cancer away throughout their lives. On the other hand, if a person is not healthy and/or there is something that is preventing the body from removing the cancer, it will simply grow.
The drugs that companies make are really just some sort of molecule, chemical, etc. that is known to attack a specific type of cancer. We find cancer killing chemicals in everything, such as fruit, plants, or even animals. This is not the important part really, they are all just specific substances that cancer just doesn't like in some way.
The problem is, isolating these various chemicals and injecting them into the body has other consequences. Just look at all the drugs that have warnings about causing liver problems. The liver, I'm sure you know, cleans our system. Bombarding the body with a certain chemical can kill off a cancer, but why do it with such a blunt tool? Like killing a fly with a hammer, you just might put a hole in your wall.
Compare the health of the average American with those of other countries (U.S. is leading in terms of specific health problems). Cancer is nothing new, but in the past few decades it has become worse. Why? Chemicals in industrial use, processed foods, additives, stress, chemicals absorbed by the plants and animals we eat, electromagnetic radiation, etc. Now although any one of these may be small in terms of toxicity to our bodies, a combination of them and an unhealthy state of body and mind will do the trick.
Once the person is a little unhealthy, they are more easily harmed by other chemicals and organisms. A huge part of the population is very sick and does not even realize it. People working within a drug company may or may not what is going on. One can be a science genius, but then becomes science vs natural growth of a living cancer cell. Like an arms race between the tools of science and the complicated human body and the cancer that can grow within it.
Drug companies really have no interest in curing people (although people in the institution actually do). There is little money in doing so and there are many cancer causing substances. It is not that there is a conspiracy (although on some levels there are, the truth is hard to swallow, sorry). Some really want to cure disease etc. but they go about it the wrong way. Why fight cancer when you could prevent it from occuring in the first place? Why fight cancer using blunt tools when you can bring a person back to health and let the body take care of it?
It is mostly ignorance. It has nothing to do with some big drug company conspiracy, some more or less know the truth (which in some cases does make it a conspiracy), others are just aren't aware of the truth.
Also, "We now return you to your regular worries about the aliens reading your brainwaves. And look out for the black helicoptors!"
is not a comment that shines light onto the argument at hand. Truth is stronger than attempting to make someone look like a nut-case.
Btw, I am not saying there is no purpose in researching medicine and making drugs. But when money became the driving force behind medicine, hell broke loose.
"The man said "I'm going to create some software that will make it easier to commit a crime" he then made some software that made it easier to commit a crime."
The crimes current politicians have committed and are committing is nothing compared to someone aiding in the distribution of an infinite resource in which the law has created more problems. (Perhaps society needs to put into question a law,that is being and will increasingly be, broken by massive amounts of people, WORLDWIDE)
The last problem that needs fixing on this earth is average joe downloading and/or distributing some new major studio flic or some hot artist's song.
And of course people are going to compare the U.S. to various forms of unethical behavior in the past. Why? Because the U.S. is behind a LOT of unethical behavior. Some don't know about it, some don't think it is unethical, and some may just simply ignore it. It is important we learn the lessons of history we do not wish to repeat.
Perhaps you don't realize the attrocities that stem from the wealthiest nation on earth. And no, I am not ignoring problems outside of the U.S. so don't even start with that, many love to backfire with such accusations (maybe you'll call me an Anti-American, or some sort of hater too). But since I both live in the U.S. and it is the source of a lot of problems (even with all the aid, etc. that this country provides). I will glady bash some of the things originating in the U.S. That does not mean that I or anyone else is anti U.S. We are anti-(whatever the hell is going wrong).
Really, what is it with this anti-bashing of the U.S.? Is the U.S. so ethically superior to the rest of the world? The U.S. population is less than 5% of the world population. Keep that in perspective.
"Since it's rampant, the only thing dying is the artist's hope of actually seeing a little compensation for your enjoyment of her work"
Why use lies to evoke emotion? You want emotion. How much does the average artist make? How much has copyright done for the average artist? How much has the MPAA and RIAA, and lobbyists for expanding and extending of copyright and patent law done for the average artist, inventor, scientist, researcher, author, programmer, engineer, musician, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?
Let me make this very clear, the continual expansion of these various property-like laws are a means for protecting certain groups (instititutions, organizations) and individuals from competition. The laws are NOT being pushed forward by most average contributors to society. It is being pushed by those that have an interest in protecting investments (and others being payed to do it, such as lawyers) and generating the largest possible cash flow possible.
No person has any right to tell another that he or she can not use an idea because someone else thought of it first. If someone has an idea they do not want others to use, then they should keep it in their head or in a safe.
"Does your idea of "fair use" include making that artist your personal little entertainment slave?"
That really is sick. Please do not make this argument any more emotional. If you want emotional, I could point you to many resources outlining how these various laws have been used to keep those starving for some serious cash artists you speak of in big business.
You really don't want to bring slavery into this topic, because the fact is, in reality, slavery is more likely with an increas in the power and scope of these laws. If you would like, I could destroy any argument you have for the continual hardline protectionism of copyright you appear to support using the argument of slavery, but I'd rather keep it simple and to the point. Add to this that there is both an increase in the scope and power of many laws not just copyright and patents. These laws are NOT for the mass population, nor for the majority of artists, scientists, etc.
My mistake. I apologize for lumping the IP thing altogether and forgetting about the fact that IP means a lot of different things.
I didn't mean that your a propagandist (I worded that really badly). I'm usually pretty good at editing myself, but sometimes I slip by when expressing my thoughts (language is a bit limited when it comes to expressing our thoughts and sometimes I get mixed up on meanings, which we all do at times).
And I definitely agree; ideas as property is a Bad Thing. Also, thanks, not too many people are willing to even consider the option of no patent system, or have a conversation about the subject.:)
The thing that puts you on the IP propaganda boat is that you believe in IP. It doesn't matter how far the reach goes, you at least believe there should still be an IP system, but reformed (like many others do).
But how often do people consider the complete elimination of such a system? I think some people immediately jump to conclusions of catastrophy, as if somehow without IP we can no longer pursue works of science and art.
We can go back to the very foundation of the IP argument, which is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...". Now one must ask the obvious question, does IP "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? For the most part, I believe the answer is no.
We are led to believe that somehow progress is tightly linked with the ability to impose idea monopolies. Somehow we are all led to believe that without these monopolies that someone else will just copy the idea that somehow that will ultimately stop progress. But how does creating a monopoly on an existing idea help promote progress? Essentially, progress is about change. IP is not about change, but about what has already happened and securing a monopoly in the marketplace on that existing idea.
Governments and many other organizations around the world already fund science and art. There is no need to promote science and art by monopolizing it. Ideas spread like fire, there is no need to reproduce them with heavy cost. In an ideal world, the better ideas win over the not so good ones. Unfortunately, the IP system has created an artificial barrier to the distribution of the very foundation of our existance. The system exists soley to keep certain players at the top and prevent anyone else from promoting actual progress.
There is a reason that Thomas Jefferson was not happy about the idea of IP. I personally believe that he was completely against the idea (and I'm sure if I studied the subject farther it would show). But he eventually gave in, why? Part of it could be that he was to be in charge of the IP system. Another simple to understand concept is pursuation. Given enough time, money, etc. the wealthy business interests pushed the idea through.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not in support of sudden elimination of the IP system, but a gradual elimination (5-15 years) starting with, for example, the oldest of patents. Trademarks and copyright are another issue. Trademarks are fine for the most part. Copyright on the other hand needs to be reformed, but not eliminated. The very core of copyright should protect only two things, plagiarism (lying of any and all sorts) and direct profiteering off of anothers work without consent.
I am not against rewarding those that contribute to society, but the IP system is not the way to do it.
How else will the poor people around the world eliminate poverty than by using the best ideas available? Instead, the wealthy have used the IP system to exploit the poor.
I'm babbling off, sorry. I could go on and on about why IP was such a bad idea, but I'll just stop right here.
"Are you saying that all patents (and not just software ones) are bad?"
Yes.
"Or is your point that the harm stems from a patent system that is institutionally corrupt?"
Also a yes. The corruption is an inevitable part of a bad system of law. Google for "Brian Martin intellectual property", he has a good outline against IP. There are many books and other articles, papers, etc. that do a good job of going into details.
"Except that all software innovation is an incremental approach. Programs build on onther programs - this is well known and has been understood for decades."
Are there not increments in science and technology (hardware too)? You almost jumped off the IP propaganda boat, but just didn't quite make it.
"Granting patents on software will slow innovation, not speed it. It will slow it because no one will work to inprove your idea. Add enough software patents and no one will do any work, since anyone can get sued for any one of a number of patents, possibly undeclared."
Now take that statement of yours I posted above and replace software with other words, such as hardware or medicine... People see IP in a very limited scope I think. They will see how a patent would protect an individual or small group, but never apply this thinking to an entire society of billions of people. They do not see the corruption that such a system of law creates, and the complications it creates.
Most are very well aware of certain IP related institutions that are and have been using and increasing the power of the IP system. And we all see the occasional ridiculous patent issue. Then add all the IP conflict/corruption/infringement/etc. that is not very public (that you don't see on/. or your television news). There are millions upon millions of patents.
It is not the scientists, inventors, researchers, authors etc. that are pushing governments and organizations around the world for even stronger IP laws. There are expections, but that is a deeper issue on the corruption that IP creates.
There are many different ways a brain can "think" its way to an idea. Genius is relative as much as any one skill from another.
*Babbling off now*
We all technically hack away at life. It is a combination of what we are aware of and what we do. In the very core of hacker is life itself, but a specific nature of life. It is like thought crunching to understand and solve problems. When you hack away at something, essentially you are focused and spend time on one particular idea.
Stupid is relative. When you consider all attributes of reality...
Anyway, school is a system of education, it is thought to be an effective one, at least in particular areas of what you call learning. There are many many many so called smart people that either never went to college, went late, or took a few decades. You are obviously stupid when it comes to reality about the role of the university institution. But that is ok, no one is perfect and neither are educational institutions.
"...but when your beloved GPL application turns up in a Brazilian program designed to create and share child pornography you won't exactly be laughing."
Poor argument against the GPL. Are you just pulling out the worst possible thing you can think of and sticking it in with GPL just to make it look bad?
You apparently, like many others, have no idea what intellectual property really means. And also no idea of its scope outside of where you reside.
What you are essentially "trying" to argue, is that tools (software under the GPL) may be used by people with bad intentions. I could point out many other tools that can be used with bad intentions, but I'm sure you could to.
The reality of IP is much different than people are willing to believe. Please don't throw in references to child pornography, etc. simply trying to evoke some sort of emotional response and sticking it with the GPL.
Trademarks are not an issue, that is an easy to understand aspect of IP that has more to do with image/label than with an idea. I have no problem with defending a particular title as long as it does not go too far with attempting to own a particular word that is part of our language.
The one area that needs to be enforced is plagiarism and related. Like you say, what if someone just rebranded some product and sold it? It happens all the time actually, maybe not the the degree you might imagine, but it happens more so than you know. Simple example is Linux and Linspire. When a product does not cater to a particular market quite well, it may be refined and sold by some other company that deals in that area better (more efficient). Discrimination between products on the surface looks like it would be a problem. But few look deeper than on the surface to see the outcome.
Brands! Brands! Brands! Simple. Why would a person by brand x, when they know brand y is better? Well maybe it is cheaper or is more suited to what they need it for. Ok, so what if it isn't what it seems? Well who in their right mind would put a product in a store that appears to be the same as another yet completely worthless? Some do, and do they last long in business? Honesty pays off, and businesses know that. Customer satisfaction, is that not important to businesses that want to stay in business? So the argument on discrimination falls flat on its face in a free market.
Oh, but wait. We are far from a free market and due to IP, we are not capitalistic in the U.S. and countries that enforce these types IP laws.
There is only one argument that may have some value, and that is incentive to distribute. But there lie many problems in this area as well. I'll point out just a little. One is efficiency. When a company has exclusive monopoly rights to an idea, it leaves them wide open to corruption. There is no need to cut corners short-term nor even in the long-term once they gain enough ground. This leads to excessive waste in many aspects of producing said product/idea/whatever.
One might argue that a company will do whatever it can to cut down on costs, improve efficiency, and produce a higher quality product/service. But what if they can not? IP stands in the way. To remedy this, they either find another way (which is not quite as good) or license (if the other company is willing) the IP. This is even more trouble, more ineffiency, more problems, more middle-men, more lawyers, more reengineering of an already successful idea that someone else "owns", etc. etc. etc.
It matters little to who the IP belongs to or how long. Any amount of law that creates a system where people have the ability to exploit a true free market and monopolize on an idea will create turmoil of some sort. Lawyers will argue back and forth creating ever more complicated ways of defining these limits (or expanding them, which has happened A LOT over the years). More middle-men are needed to argue over who was first, who is right, who is wrong, what products infringe, what needs to be changed.
Back to incentive to distribute. Whatever the climate was in the past, distribution of ideas is far from a problem now. The quality has become much more important than the ease of sending it over a wire. One only needs to look in oneself to understand that patents are not needed to promote intelligence and creativity. Like I have said, it has little to nothing to do with incentive, but far more about control.
Copyright should only be enforced when it comes to profit and only during the life of the creator. In fact, patents should be closer to the idea of copyright with some exceptions. If someone comes up with a new device of some sort, it is only obvious that this person should get credit for his or her work. Why? Do I really need to explain why it is important to know that person X came up with idea as opposed to person Y? It is the basic ethical and religious argument of lying. Lying is bad,
You know how the political scene uses all those poles? Add to that all the other organizations that use opinion poles, comment boxes, feedback, etc. It is all about understanding your consumer/customer/enemy/product/pick your view. This is essentially the same thing.
What we should be concerned with is credit where it is due. Those that produce more valuable ideas will obviously be in more demand. Giving an individual, group, or organization a monopoly on an idea, no matter its simplicity or complexity, is essentially a stop sign on progress.
If WIPO is able to get a good deal of information on the way people view IP, it will have the information to wage a good propaganda campaign.
Put as simply as possible, IP is about theft and control. For those that believe it is about incentive, just remember this: if IP did not exist, do you believe that suddenly progress would stop? that people would stop inventing, that new products would stop being produced? that Einstein would not have come up with his theories of time and space? that Mozart would not have written music?
Woah boy, slow down. I could use your same argument tactic and it would not be pretty, so back up and go the the core of this argument. The ultimate truth is in that people create art/entertainment/etc. and then sell it. The "sell it" part has changed significantly over the past few hundred years. We are now at the point that the cost of creating art/etc. has dropped significantly, distribution has become enormous, and the artificial barriers are breaking. The simple fact is, art is here to stay and sharing it in a more fluid less "draconian" way will benefit all. When patronizing was the method of use a long time ago, few artists could make a living. Only the wealthiest afforded the services and this in turn made art a reflection of the interest of the few, the wealthy. On the other hand, there was also cultural art that the masses did participate in. Such as music, although the method of recording it was in the minds of the next generation on and on. Without certain laws, people wouldn't spend such vast sums of money creating movies and music. But it has grown into a huge business with enormous profit potential. The enormous profit potential is because of the laws, because the artificial barrier exists to hold back the competition created by such amazingly low reproduction and distribution costs.
How has creating one album, one movie, etc. become so expensive? There are a number of reasons. But how many people are quite satisfied with Hollywood? Who does not understand how Hollywood got its start? Or how small it is, but how much money it makes? One must remember, they are not fighting for their right to make money. They have plenty of ability to do it without attacking filesharing. Sharing a song online does not take money from them, it creates exposure. A person downloading a song that normally would have been bought, is what the marketplace does. Getting a hold of a product for free without depriving another of anything in the process is a normal part of life, they need to get over it. Technology is there for a reason. As it destroys certain markets and takes away some jobs, it creates new markets and new jobs.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we should continue to make these laws harsher, stronger, more "draconian" and we will be living in a police state. Maybe that is where society wants to be, a place where we hold onto old ways of doing things and forcing others to play along. Law is just another form of art that got jealous of all the others.
They don't appear to be doing any worse than the U.S. In fact, it seems they are doing better than the U.S. Even more interesting is they are spending less per person than the U.S. Now there is some other important material to know, such as the typical U.S. diet, but fact is they are far from doing worse when it comes to health.
There are people that have lost portions of their brain and still function normally. Also, as long as there is incoming information the mind will work the brain for the connections. The simple fact is the brain can be thought of like a muscle. How you use it determines its strengths. Its a big space to put stuff.
Consider this, we have mass storage devices that can hold up to terabytes. The brain is larger compared to some of these devices and vastly more complicated. To say that other things will suffer is really both an obvious, but misunderstood connection. The ability of our brain to manage more is debatable, but the time dedicated to any particular area could be measurable. Taking more time to learn to type will result in the ability to type faster for example. The question also becomes, is it the eye that encourages better vision or the brain/mind? An increase in the information coming into the brain does not necessarily mean one is aware of it all. If you ignore it, then why should your brain care to wire it strongly? It is what we aware of, or concious of, that determines the brain structure. What we call conciousness is the mind. Monkeys that can control a mechanical arm with electrodes wired into the brain is possible. All that suffers is that which is not being used.
"Regardless of what he claims, the end result of everyone adopting the GNU philosphy is that noone would make a living writing software."
Far from true. Where would software come from? Space? Monkeys? Space monkeys?
Someone will have to write the software. And I can assure you people will not be writing it for free without some sort of income to live on. Software serves a purpose. When a new purpose needs to be served, someone will be hired to write software for it, or will write it themselves to serve that purpose.
What most fail to realize is that ultimately, free software must dominate in a free world. But, because the world is not perfect, and there is a vast amount of proprietary software, it is difficult for some to make an income writing free software. If one thought deeply on the subject and looked at the GPL, one would realize the purpose behind this license. But some simply see what is in front of them. They do not see what will happen 10, 20, 100 years from now. They do not see the problems that stem from proprietary licenses. They do not see what is not directly in front of them.
You, like most people that fail to understand the importance of the open source/free software movement will continue to live your lives day in and day out just trying to make a living. And those that care more about the future of software, RMS/etc. will continue to fight whether or not anyone else cares. I am thankful for the work that all these people do.
I do not know of anyone that is arguing that software should be written for free. They are arguing about the strings attached to the work they do.
Many in the propriety world are still under the assumption that software is like a product that should be written, packaged, shipped, and forgotten about. This thiking will inevitably fail in the long run, and the change to services (from products) started a long time ago.
But like I said, the world is not perfect. It will take time for people to realize the importance of keeping software open (no monopolies on ideas). It will take time for economies, companies, governments, etc. to adjust.
Very true, and something almost any perceptive person will have noticed about the entire U.S. education system (I don't know about others). And it is getting worse. Education is becoming standardized, or in other words, constrained into a skill building institution. I see little hope in any improvement in the education system that is not nearly completely revolutionary. And I don't see any revolutionary changes anytime soon. Our education is extremely flawed. Those that disagree (which there are some) are a small minority that simply see things differently. I could point out the many many famous "geniuses" that did poorly in school. But that is another long discussion. My point is, there is little anyone can do now (I could be wrong) that will improve the school system to any significant degree. Rome fell for a reason. It was not the schools, the goverment, the people, the military, it was ALL OF IT. Society grows to a certain point, everyone running like a rat to reach their goals. If you took a very deep look into those that make all the decisions about our education (goverment, corporations, etc. all the same) you will find the truth. As much as they appear to care, and even sincerely do want to improve things, there is little they will and can do. We all do what we can within scope, unfortunately, the scope is very tight.
School will always be just good enough to keep things going (hopefully not for the longterm). The wealthy can afford to send their children to the better schools, the middle class will get a mediocre education, and the poor will simply be out of luck.
Slashdot Mirror
"US Universities have been especially anti-American since the '60s."
/.
Ok, define "anti-American". What is an American? Is it any U.S. citizen? illegals? But then again, we all have different beliefs. You pick a few instances, of which none can be best decribed using the term "anti-American", and then conclude what? Your not thinking too straight. During WWII in Germany, was a Jew anti-German, was a Nazi anti-German, was an American citizen living in Germany anti-German? Do you see my point? I hope so. There are people of many many many beliefs that both attend and work at Universities.
You can not treat a University like an individual anymore than you can treat a company like an individual (no matter how it looks legally), or else you are ignoring reality. A University is an institution composed of individuals. Treat it for what it is, and stay away from treating it like one single person.
Do NOT generalize based on a few cases, because one can produce far more cases against those posts you have just made that paint a very different picture.
There is far too much generalizing going on in
Btw, you need to understand, that there are individuals in the U.S. government that would love to undermine the power of Universities, especially when it comes to some of the things being taught that are in direct conflict with their particular goals. Antiwar demonstrations have originated from Universities very often, and not just in the U.S. If you think hard enough, you might understand some of the reasons why.
A few nutcases among the millions is your argument? Would you like me to describe you based solely on a few of your flaws?
As insightful as your post may be to some, I could at the very same time fit hacking into your view of what hacking is not.
"However, expressing it as hacking means that you're creating short term or disruptive solutions rather than long term solutions that will last. When hacking meets the discipline of Engineering, all hell breaks loose."
What is long-term? Days, months, years, decades? Does it not depend on the problem? Engineering is no more discipline than it is hacking away at problems. Like two sides to a coin, engineering goes beyond a formula or equation. It is about using the formulas, equations, and definitions WITH our ability to just hack away at a problem. Engineering, like hacking, is like science and art. Neither is the other, and just either doesn't work.
"So in short, leave the hacking in college."
That is completely backwards. In college you learn the formulas, the equations, etc. In life, you hack, with what you know.
First of all, your picking out small examples and then generalizing out of them. Your doing it a lot.
:).
"It just ticks me off that pirates don't just admit what they do."
Umm, ok everyone, start postong "I am a pirate, I sail the savage seas, and I download material covered by the U.S. copyright" to make this kid happy. Well, I'm upset because you won't admit that your eating too much sugar, won't get off Ritalin, and that your posts are full of your opinions about what other people supposedly think.
"...where everything the RIAA does is evil, going after individual infringers (which is what Slashdot editors and readers said the RIAA should do five years ago) to protect your own copyrighted materials is somehow evil, etc."
There is a difference between a kid downloading a song from another kid as opposed to some criminal enterprise that mass produces the copyrighted material and sells it for a profit. When people point out the evil things the RIAA does, it seems to fly right over the heads of those that stick to the "infringing is stealing" logic. One needs to take a realistic view on this topic, and constistantly confusing "breaking copyright law" with "stealing" is a major obstacle in finally getting past the kneejerk reaction posts. When you get into this subject further, it leads you into philosophy, so I won't go too far. If you wish to argue the merits of the copyright law, then by all means do. But enough of this grumpy parading on Slashdot.
People are upset, because the RIAA is both defending the law in a very morally questionable way and continue to make the law worse (they aren't the only ones).
"You know, independent artists. Those guys you claim to be fighting for are only on places like iTunes."
Again your talking about things you just do not understand, and pulling statements quite literally out of your ass. iTunes is definitely NOT the ONLY place for independent artists. In fact, the RIAA has tried to stop independent artists and labels from becoming more prominent. That is one of their biggest worries. Why? Think about it. What is the RIAA? I can assure you they are not there to protect the independent artists and labels out there, hence the reason they are called independent. The RIAA is in the business of protecting the interests of those it serves. Who does it serve you ask? Not the artists. Not the consumers. Here are the five major ones they support Sony, EMI, UMG, Time Warner, and BMG.
You claim all these various arguments are excuses, but like I said before, your picking out small examples. There is a truth behind those arguments. Instead of just flat out claiming that they are excuses, look into it. Turn on the radio to one mainstream station (RIAA friendly station, not independant) and listen to it for a week. Then come back and complain about it
If your really so upset about artists not getting paid. Do something. Change the system. Because trying to change all the people to follow the old ugly system, would be naive.
There is a very good reason a very large portion of the IT workforce is at the very least upset about Microsoft. The very foundation of the company was law, business, and getting away with things that just fell right below the law somehow. They have continued in that tradition. Microsoft probably owes its very existance to a few of these unethical practices. Sure Microsoft (essentially the wealthiest of Microsoft) has donated lots of money to various organizations, or even created their own. But there is no need for damaging behavior that hurts us all. By failing to work with the market and using whatever means necessary to simply stay ahead and grow ever more hungry and greedy, they hurt IT and other areas as well. So yea, of course most of us hate Microsoft in some certain way, hoping they will stop or the law we can all agree to follow is enforced on them. Yea, you can call me a Microsoft basher. They really are full of crap and deserving of it too.
So why do we still use their products? Well, that is the funny part...
"I've got a real issue with people who make statements like this."
Sounds like a great start to a very opinionated post.
"The system is only as good as the people using it."
There is a limit to how well a badly functioning tool can be used.
"Education in the US doesn't suck. Our culture sucks."
Can you be any more obvious about your opinions? And so general. Our culture sucks? As in the entire culture? Everything about it? or just certain parts? Your not that negative a person all around are you?
"Kids who skip grades and push ahead are ostracized not just by their peers but by their peers parents as well."
Oh now I see. A small percentage of kids doing really well are the big problem. Somehow we are not paying enough attention to these so called prodigys, right?
In general, your entire post is about blaming every individual that does not fit into the current system of education. A majority of students never make it through college, and a very large percentage never even graduate high school. Yet somehow you would like to convince us all that we are to blame every individual student that does poorly? Which would be a very large majority of the student population. And still, the education system in the U.S. does not suck? Then please do tell, what would you decribe as a school system that does suck?
Your entire argument goes off into blaming the individual for a system that is obviously a disaster in terms of what most people would consider a decent institution for education.
Your worst statement of all is:
"If our system "sucks" so much, why are there SO many successful people who went through the system?"
You do realize how many "SO many" is right? Also, you do realize how many successful people did NOT go through the system right? I rest my case.
There are many reasons why the system is not good. You have only pointed out a very narrow view of what you see as the problem. But it goes farther and deeper than that. The only way of solving it is one step at a time. Simply blaming anyone and everyone is just a way out of the discussion. What about YOU! Because YOU are the one most in control of YOU! Then again, one person alone can not solve such a huge problem. So we must all work together to solve it. And trust me, there are many problems in our system of education.
You really do have issues. You sound like a religious nut. Your warmongering. What the hell is wrong with you?
Do you listen to all the bullshit spouted off by the powerful interests that would LOVE to go to an all out war with the middle east? You have no apparent wisdom when it comes to understanding the thoughts and actions of the wealthy. They do not think like the average American, they influence them (as much as they can). Most to all Muslims are little different than your average Christian with some minor cultural differences.
To create hate you first find something you don't like about another religion/people. From there you find more reason to hate them, and more, and more, and more. Escalating into a war between two people, that by the time they realize what it was they first argued about is too late, because many die, and the next kill becomes about avenging the death of your brothers and sisters.
If you don't believe in peace, then my friend, you are terrorist.
Actually, think about it this way. Cancer is something normal. Healthy people will clean cancer away throughout their lives. On the other hand, if a person is not healthy and/or there is something that is preventing the body from removing the cancer, it will simply grow.
The drugs that companies make are really just some sort of molecule, chemical, etc. that is known to attack a specific type of cancer. We find cancer killing chemicals in everything, such as fruit, plants, or even animals. This is not the important part really, they are all just specific substances that cancer just doesn't like in some way.
The problem is, isolating these various chemicals and injecting them into the body has other consequences. Just look at all the drugs that have warnings about causing liver problems. The liver, I'm sure you know, cleans our system. Bombarding the body with a certain chemical can kill off a cancer, but why do it with such a blunt tool? Like killing a fly with a hammer, you just might put a hole in your wall.
Compare the health of the average American with those of other countries (U.S. is leading in terms of specific health problems). Cancer is nothing new, but in the past few decades it has become worse. Why? Chemicals in industrial use, processed foods, additives, stress, chemicals absorbed by the plants and animals we eat, electromagnetic radiation, etc. Now although any one of these may be small in terms of toxicity to our bodies, a combination of them and an unhealthy state of body and mind will do the trick.
Once the person is a little unhealthy, they are more easily harmed by other chemicals and organisms. A huge part of the population is very sick and does not even realize it. People working within a drug company may or may not what is going on. One can be a science genius, but then becomes science vs natural growth of a living cancer cell. Like an arms race between the tools of science and the complicated human body and the cancer that can grow within it.
Drug companies really have no interest in curing people (although people in the institution actually do). There is little money in doing so and there are many cancer causing substances. It is not that there is a conspiracy (although on some levels there are, the truth is hard to swallow, sorry). Some really want to cure disease etc. but they go about it the wrong way. Why fight cancer when you could prevent it from occuring in the first place? Why fight cancer using blunt tools when you can bring a person back to health and let the body take care of it?
It is mostly ignorance. It has nothing to do with some big drug company conspiracy, some more or less know the truth (which in some cases does make it a conspiracy), others are just aren't aware of the truth.
Also,
"We now return you to your regular worries about the aliens reading your brainwaves. And look out for the black helicoptors!"
is not a comment that shines light onto the argument at hand. Truth is stronger than attempting to make someone look like a nut-case.
Btw, I am not saying there is no purpose in researching medicine and making drugs. But when money became the driving force behind medicine, hell broke loose.
"The man said "I'm going to create some software that will make it easier to commit a crime" he then made some software that made it easier to commit a crime."
,that is being and will increasingly be, broken by massive amounts of people, WORLDWIDE)
The crimes current politicians have committed and are committing is nothing compared to someone aiding in the distribution of an infinite resource in which the law has created more problems. (Perhaps society needs to put into question a law
The last problem that needs fixing on this earth is average joe downloading and/or distributing some new major studio flic or some hot artist's song.
And of course people are going to compare the U.S. to various forms of unethical behavior in the past. Why? Because the U.S. is behind a LOT of unethical behavior. Some don't know about it, some don't think it is unethical, and some may just simply ignore it. It is important we learn the lessons of history we do not wish to repeat.
Perhaps you don't realize the attrocities that stem from the wealthiest nation on earth. And no, I am not ignoring problems outside of the U.S. so don't even start with that, many love to backfire with such accusations (maybe you'll call me an Anti-American, or some sort of hater too). But since I both live in the U.S. and it is the source of a lot of problems (even with all the aid, etc. that this country provides). I will glady bash some of the things originating in the U.S. That does not mean that I or anyone else is anti U.S. We are anti-(whatever the hell is going wrong).
Really, what is it with this anti-bashing of the U.S.? Is the U.S. so ethically superior to the rest of the world? The U.S. population is less than 5% of the world population. Keep that in perspective.
"Since it's rampant, the only thing dying is the artist's hope of actually seeing a little compensation for your enjoyment of her work"
Why use lies to evoke emotion? You want emotion. How much does the average artist make? How much has copyright done for the average artist? How much has the MPAA and RIAA, and lobbyists for expanding and extending of copyright and patent law done for the average artist, inventor, scientist, researcher, author, programmer, engineer, musician, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.?
Let me make this very clear, the continual expansion of these various property-like laws are a means for protecting certain groups (instititutions, organizations) and individuals from competition. The laws are NOT being pushed forward by most average contributors to society. It is being pushed by those that have an interest in protecting investments (and others being payed to do it, such as lawyers) and generating the largest possible cash flow possible.
No person has any right to tell another that he or she can not use an idea because someone else thought of it first. If someone has an idea they do not want others to use, then they should keep it in their head or in a safe.
"Does your idea of "fair use" include making that artist your personal little entertainment slave?"
That really is sick. Please do not make this argument any more emotional. If you want emotional, I could point you to many resources outlining how these various laws have been used to keep those starving for some serious cash artists you speak of in big business.
You really don't want to bring slavery into this topic, because the fact is, in reality, slavery is more likely with an increas in the power and scope of these laws. If you would like, I could destroy any argument you have for the continual hardline protectionism of copyright you appear to support using the argument of slavery, but I'd rather keep it simple and to the point. Add to this that there is both an increase in the scope and power of many laws not just copyright and patents. These laws are NOT for the mass population, nor for the majority of artists, scientists, etc.
No real need for batteries, the fuel takes care of that. Run the plane on solar while using the fuel as a consistant backup.
Adding a battery would just be adding another, because fuel is a kind of battery.
My mistake. I apologize for lumping the IP thing altogether and forgetting about the fact that IP means a lot of different things.
:)
I didn't mean that your a propagandist (I worded that really badly). I'm usually pretty good at editing myself, but sometimes I slip by when expressing my thoughts (language is a bit limited when it comes to expressing our thoughts and sometimes I get mixed up on meanings, which we all do at times).
And I definitely agree; ideas as property is a Bad Thing. Also, thanks, not too many people are willing to even consider the option of no patent system, or have a conversation about the subject.
The thing that puts you on the IP propaganda boat is that you believe in IP. It doesn't matter how far the reach goes, you at least believe there should still be an IP system, but reformed (like many others do).
But how often do people consider the complete elimination of such a system? I think some people immediately jump to conclusions of catastrophy, as if somehow without IP we can no longer pursue works of science and art.
We can go back to the very foundation of the IP argument, which is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts...". Now one must ask the obvious question, does IP "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? For the most part, I believe the answer is no.
We are led to believe that somehow progress is tightly linked with the ability to impose idea monopolies. Somehow we are all led to believe that without these monopolies that someone else will just copy the idea that somehow that will ultimately stop progress. But how does creating a monopoly on an existing idea help promote progress? Essentially, progress is about change. IP is not about change, but about what has already happened and securing a monopoly in the marketplace on that existing idea.
Governments and many other organizations around the world already fund science and art. There is no need to promote science and art by monopolizing it. Ideas spread like fire, there is no need to reproduce them with heavy cost. In an ideal world, the better ideas win over the not so good ones. Unfortunately, the IP system has created an artificial barrier to the distribution of the very foundation of our existance. The system exists soley to keep certain players at the top and prevent anyone else from promoting actual progress.
There is a reason that Thomas Jefferson was not happy about the idea of IP. I personally believe that he was completely against the idea (and I'm sure if I studied the subject farther it would show). But he eventually gave in, why? Part of it could be that he was to be in charge of the IP system. Another simple to understand concept is pursuation. Given enough time, money, etc. the wealthy business interests pushed the idea through.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not in support of sudden elimination of the IP system, but a gradual elimination (5-15 years) starting with, for example, the oldest of patents. Trademarks and copyright are another issue. Trademarks are fine for the most part. Copyright on the other hand needs to be reformed, but not eliminated. The very core of copyright should protect only two things, plagiarism (lying of any and all sorts) and direct profiteering off of anothers work without consent.
I am not against rewarding those that contribute to society, but the IP system is not the way to do it.
How else will the poor people around the world eliminate poverty than by using the best ideas available? Instead, the wealthy have used the IP system to exploit the poor.
I'm babbling off, sorry. I could go on and on about why IP was such a bad idea, but I'll just stop right here.
"Are you saying that all patents (and not just software ones) are bad?"
Yes.
"Or is your point that the harm stems from a patent system that is institutionally corrupt?"
Also a yes. The corruption is an inevitable part of a bad system of law. Google for "Brian Martin intellectual property", he has a good outline against IP. There are many books and other articles, papers, etc. that do a good job of going into details.
"Except that all software innovation is an incremental approach. Programs build on onther programs - this is well known and has been understood for decades."
/. or your television news). There are millions upon millions of patents.
Are there not increments in science and technology (hardware too)? You almost jumped off the IP propaganda boat, but just didn't quite make it.
"Granting patents on software will slow innovation, not speed it. It will slow it because no one will work to inprove your idea. Add enough software patents and no one will do any work, since anyone can get sued for any one of a number of patents, possibly undeclared."
Now take that statement of yours I posted above and replace software with other words, such as hardware or medicine... People see IP in a very limited scope I think. They will see how a patent would protect an individual or small group, but never apply this thinking to an entire society of billions of people. They do not see the corruption that such a system of law creates, and the complications it creates.
Most are very well aware of certain IP related institutions that are and have been using and increasing the power of the IP system. And we all see the occasional ridiculous patent issue. Then add all the IP conflict/corruption/infringement/etc. that is not very public (that you don't see on
It is not the scientists, inventors, researchers, authors etc. that are pushing governments and organizations around the world for even stronger IP laws. There are expections, but that is a deeper issue on the corruption that IP creates.
"I wish I could move there, but I doubt there's much work for a software developer in a country nobody's heard of until today."
I think the bigger news is the undiscovered island of 1.2 million people.
There are many different ways a brain can "think" its way to an idea. Genius is relative as much as any one skill from another.
*Babbling off now*
We all technically hack away at life. It is a combination of what we are aware of and what we do. In the very core of hacker is life itself, but a specific nature of life. It is like thought crunching to understand and solve problems. When you hack away at something, essentially you are focused and spend time on one particular idea.
Stupid is relative. When you consider all attributes of reality...
Anyway, school is a system of education, it is thought to be an effective one, at least in particular areas of what you call learning. There are many many many so called smart people that either never went to college, went late, or took a few decades. You are obviously stupid when it comes to reality about the role of the university institution. But that is ok, no one is perfect and neither are educational institutions.
"...but when your beloved GPL application turns up in a Brazilian program designed to create and share child pornography you won't exactly be laughing."
Poor argument against the GPL. Are you just pulling out the worst possible thing you can think of and sticking it in with GPL just to make it look bad?
You apparently, like many others, have no idea what intellectual property really means. And also no idea of its scope outside of where you reside.
What you are essentially "trying" to argue, is that tools (software under the GPL) may be used by people with bad intentions. I could point out many other tools that can be used with bad intentions, but I'm sure you could to.
The reality of IP is much different than people are willing to believe. Please don't throw in references to child pornography, etc. simply trying to evoke some sort of emotional response and sticking it with the GPL.
Trademarks are not an issue, that is an easy to understand aspect of IP that has more to do with image/label than with an idea. I have no problem with defending a particular title as long as it does not go too far with attempting to own a particular word that is part of our language.
The one area that needs to be enforced is plagiarism and related. Like you say, what if someone just rebranded some product and sold it? It happens all the time actually, maybe not the the degree you might imagine, but it happens more so than you know. Simple example is Linux and Linspire. When a product does not cater to a particular market quite well, it may be refined and sold by some other company that deals in that area better (more efficient). Discrimination between products on the surface looks like it would be a problem. But few look deeper than on the surface to see the outcome.
Brands! Brands! Brands! Simple. Why would a person by brand x, when they know brand y is better? Well maybe it is cheaper or is more suited to what they need it for. Ok, so what if it isn't what it seems? Well who in their right mind would put a product in a store that appears to be the same as another yet completely worthless? Some do, and do they last long in business? Honesty pays off, and businesses know that. Customer satisfaction, is that not important to businesses that want to stay in business? So the argument on discrimination falls flat on its face in a free market.
Oh, but wait. We are far from a free market and due to IP, we are not capitalistic in the U.S. and countries that enforce these types IP laws.
There is only one argument that may have some value, and that is incentive to distribute. But there lie many problems in this area as well. I'll point out just a little. One is efficiency. When a company has exclusive monopoly rights to an idea, it leaves them wide open to corruption. There is no need to cut corners short-term nor even in the long-term once they gain enough ground. This leads to excessive waste in many aspects of producing said product/idea/whatever.
One might argue that a company will do whatever it can to cut down on costs, improve efficiency, and produce a higher quality product/service. But what if they can not? IP stands in the way. To remedy this, they either find another way (which is not quite as good) or license (if the other company is willing) the IP. This is even more trouble, more ineffiency, more problems, more middle-men, more lawyers, more reengineering of an already successful idea that someone else "owns", etc. etc. etc.
It matters little to who the IP belongs to or how long. Any amount of law that creates a system where people have the ability to exploit a true free market and monopolize on an idea will create turmoil of some sort. Lawyers will argue back and forth creating ever more complicated ways of defining these limits (or expanding them, which has happened A LOT over the years). More middle-men are needed to argue over who was first, who is right, who is wrong, what products infringe, what needs to be changed.
Back to incentive to distribute. Whatever the climate was in the past, distribution of ideas is far from a problem now. The quality has become much more important than the ease of sending it over a wire. One only needs to look in oneself to understand that patents are not needed to promote intelligence and creativity. Like I have said, it has little to nothing to do with incentive, but far more about control.
Copyright should only be enforced when it comes to profit and only during the life of the creator. In fact, patents should be closer to the idea of copyright with some exceptions. If someone comes up with a new device of some sort, it is only obvious that this person should get credit for his or her work. Why? Do I really need to explain why it is important to know that person X came up with idea as opposed to person Y? It is the basic ethical and religious argument of lying. Lying is bad,
You know how the political scene uses all those poles? Add to that all the other organizations that use opinion poles, comment boxes, feedback, etc. It is all about understanding your consumer/customer/enemy/product/pick your view. This is essentially the same thing.
What we should be concerned with is credit where it is due. Those that produce more valuable ideas will obviously be in more demand. Giving an individual, group, or organization a monopoly on an idea, no matter its simplicity or complexity, is essentially a stop sign on progress.
If WIPO is able to get a good deal of information on the way people view IP, it will have the information to wage a good propaganda campaign.
Put as simply as possible, IP is about theft and control. For those that believe it is about incentive, just remember this: if IP did not exist, do you believe that suddenly progress would stop? that people would stop inventing, that new products would stop being produced? that Einstein would not have come up with his theories of time and space? that Mozart would not have written music?
WIPO does not need enlightment on IP, people do.
Woah boy, slow down. I could use your same argument tactic and it would not be pretty, so back up and go the the core of this argument. The ultimate truth is in that people create art/entertainment/etc. and then sell it. The "sell it" part has changed significantly over the past few hundred years. We are now at the point that the cost of creating art/etc. has dropped significantly, distribution has become enormous, and the artificial barriers are breaking. The simple fact is, art is here to stay and sharing it in a more fluid less "draconian" way will benefit all. When patronizing was the method of use a long time ago, few artists could make a living. Only the wealthiest afforded the services and this in turn made art a reflection of the interest of the few, the wealthy. On the other hand, there was also cultural art that the masses did participate in. Such as music, although the method of recording it was in the minds of the next generation on and on. Without certain laws, people wouldn't spend such vast sums of money creating movies and music. But it has grown into a huge business with enormous profit potential. The enormous profit potential is because of the laws, because the artificial barrier exists to hold back the competition created by such amazingly low reproduction and distribution costs.
How has creating one album, one movie, etc. become so expensive? There are a number of reasons. But how many people are quite satisfied with Hollywood? Who does not understand how Hollywood got its start? Or how small it is, but how much money it makes? One must remember, they are not fighting for their right to make money. They have plenty of ability to do it without attacking filesharing. Sharing a song online does not take money from them, it creates exposure. A person downloading a song that normally would have been bought, is what the marketplace does. Getting a hold of a product for free without depriving another of anything in the process is a normal part of life, they need to get over it. Technology is there for a reason. As it destroys certain markets and takes away some jobs, it creates new markets and new jobs.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we should continue to make these laws harsher, stronger, more "draconian" and we will be living in a police state. Maybe that is where society wants to be, a place where we hold onto old ways of doing things and forcing others to play along. Law is just another form of art that got jealous of all the others.
Perhaps you should check out these two pages.
http://www.who.int/countries/can/en/
http://www.who.int/countries/usa/en/
They don't appear to be doing any worse than the U.S. In fact, it seems they are doing better than the U.S. Even more interesting is they are spending less per person than the U.S. Now there is some other important material to know, such as the typical U.S. diet, but fact is they are far from doing worse when it comes to health.
There are people that have lost portions of their brain and still function normally. Also, as long as there is incoming information the mind will work the brain for the connections. The simple fact is the brain can be thought of like a muscle. How you use it determines its strengths.
Its a big space to put stuff.
Consider this, we have mass storage devices that can hold up to terabytes. The brain is larger compared to some of these devices and vastly more complicated. To say that other things will suffer is really both an obvious, but misunderstood connection. The ability of our brain to manage more is debatable, but the time dedicated to any particular area could be measurable. Taking more time to learn to type will result in the ability to type faster for example. The question also becomes, is it the eye that encourages better vision or the brain/mind? An increase in the information coming into the brain does not necessarily mean one is aware of it all. If you ignore it, then why should your brain care to wire it strongly? It is what we aware of, or concious of, that determines the brain structure. What we call conciousness is the mind. Monkeys that can control a mechanical arm with electrodes wired into the brain is possible. All that suffers is that which is not being used.
"Regardless of what he claims, the end result of everyone adopting the GNU philosphy is that noone would make a living writing software."
Far from true. Where would software come from? Space? Monkeys? Space monkeys?
Someone will have to write the software. And I can assure you people will not be writing it for free without some sort of income to live on. Software serves a purpose. When a new purpose needs to be served, someone will be hired to write software for it, or will write it themselves to serve that purpose.
What most fail to realize is that ultimately, free software must dominate in a free world. But, because the world is not perfect, and there is a vast amount of proprietary software, it is difficult for some to make an income writing free software. If one thought deeply on the subject and looked at the GPL, one would realize the purpose behind this license. But some simply see what is in front of them. They do not see what will happen 10, 20, 100 years from now. They do not see the problems that stem from proprietary licenses. They do not see what is not directly in front of them.
You, like most people that fail to understand the importance of the open source/free software movement will continue to live your lives day in and day out just trying to make a living. And those that care more about the future of software, RMS/etc. will continue to fight whether or not anyone else cares. I am thankful for the work that all these people do.
I do not know of anyone that is arguing that software should be written for free. They are arguing about the strings attached to the work they do.
Many in the propriety world are still under the assumption that software is like a product that should be written, packaged, shipped, and forgotten about. This thiking will inevitably fail in the long run, and the change to services (from products) started a long time ago.
But like I said, the world is not perfect. It will take time for people to realize the importance of keeping software open (no monopolies on ideas). It will take time for economies, companies, governments, etc. to adjust.
Very true, and something almost any perceptive person will have noticed about the entire U.S. education system (I don't know about others). And it is getting worse. Education is becoming standardized, or in other words, constrained into a skill building institution. I see little hope in any improvement in the education system that is not nearly completely revolutionary. And I don't see any revolutionary changes anytime soon. Our education is extremely flawed. Those that disagree (which there are some) are a small minority that simply see things differently. I could point out the many many famous "geniuses" that did poorly in school. But that is another long discussion. My point is, there is little anyone can do now (I could be wrong) that will improve the school system to any significant degree. Rome fell for a reason. It was not the schools, the goverment, the people, the military, it was ALL OF IT. Society grows to a certain point, everyone running like a rat to reach their goals. If you took a very deep look into those that make all the decisions about our education (goverment, corporations, etc. all the same) you will find the truth. As much as they appear to care, and even sincerely do want to improve things, there is little they will and can do. We all do what we can within scope, unfortunately, the scope is very tight.
School will always be just good enough to keep things going (hopefully not for the longterm). The wealthy can afford to send their children to the better schools, the middle class will get a mediocre education, and the poor will simply be out of luck.