I think the biggest barrier is a quality user experience, not technical barriers. As you say the technical barriers are well understood, and not insurmountable. A huge effort, though, is required to get gmail like quality experience without using Google, on the desktop, and my phone, at all times, anywhere in the world. So that necessarily implies the user can opt into more than one hardware unit in order to ensure their data is replicated, and opt into distributed (and encrypted) copies that aren't in their home in case their singular network pipe goes down.
I've been inclined to go with "more" cloud service than go it alone mainly because I have one nasty, but necessary, email account that garners so much spam that as a non-expert with spamassassin I just can't tolerate it. Whereas gmail's spam filtering is just so close to 100% correct. So I can appreciate the importance of this project, as well as the work that will be involved.
Especially a bug that the bug reporter has failed to provide developer quested information in the past 10 days, and was also using an older (in the context of btrfs anything older than 3.11 is old) kernel when the problem occurred? Especially uninteresting in my opinion.
Fortunately, neither you nor Slashdotters in this thread are making copyright law. Your proposal is not merely uncompelling, it's completely stupid, and therefore not a single author or artist has any incentive to agree to it. Apparently you prefer the approach to copyright in China which is: we the people without creativity or skills own every idea of every individual, we do not thank the creative individual for their imagination or ingenuity; authors and artists, GO FUCK YOURSELVES while we steal your awesome shit.
You don't want to pay $20 for a movie, album, or a book, let alone send $20 to a Congress critter suggesting an easier way to legally pillage from authors and artists. You're contributing nothing, yet demanding "GIMME!"
Now you''re coming around to my way of thinking in the first paragraph. Absolutely author's should have the right to so outprice their writings that they effectively stagnate, they make no money, and no one will know or care. But that wasn't your original position.
Every email you've written has copyright attached. It's illegal for anyone to copy and distribution without your permission. Consider it this way, using your prior rationalization (and others, I'm not just picking on you) your copyright on everything you've ever written, should expire and become public domain. All of your emails, documents, presentations, anything, would be fair game for data mining, duplicating intact, or even becoming the basis of a story that ends up selling a million copies of something - but you'd get nothing. And you'd have no control to prevent it once your copyright expires.
You've only exposed a great deficiency of capitalism's exploitation of workers. This is particularly exposed with a product that requires a lot of labor, and a product that also has a long life span. Syndicalism produces a more fair outcome in this case. But regardless you appear to recognize that the laborer has a right to demand X in exchange for Y, effectively without any limitation. And yet you don't extend that same right to define terms to authors and artists, you appear to want them to subsidize that entertainment artery as if it's your right to get free or cheap good entertainment. And I'm saying GFY.
What you propose incentivizes me as an author to not write anything anymore, but to choose another line of work. Already, in both fiction and non-fiction, the good authors are being squeezed out. There's increasing amounts of cheap crap, and there's expensive really good to excellent work. But there's decreasing amounts of just plain good. So good luck getting your fix off the cheap crap out there, while you pine away thinking of ways to screw over the really good to excellent work.
The author should have the right to define the licensing just like any labor worker should have the right to define the terms of their employment. If the person/company buying doesn't like the terms, simple, it's no deal. The labor worker or author can either reduce their price or otherwise soften the terms, or walk away to find another buyer. You're saying that there should be a fixed deal, no negotiation allowed, by taking the ideas of authors as if society has some right to them. Well it doesn't. Just like society doesn't have the right to tell a labor worker he can't negotiate for a raise, or walk.
It's common in art to have completely different selling prices for various members of an edition print. Typically the first ones are less expensive, and they get more expensive - for exactly the same copy of the limited edition run. Again, you're proposing that's crap, the artist has no such right, it should be a fixed price for each copy. And further you're proposing that that all artists should sell at the same price, only differing in how many pieces they sell - more popular artists sell more and thus make more. Well that isn't how that market works, at all.
And then you top it off by saying the author's possibly only source of income should be shut off based on an arbitrary length of time, possibly before they die. Yet someone with shares of stock can die and give those to their kids. You've basically arguing for pillaging the property rights of only authors and artists, while everyone else gets to collect interest for their whole life on savings and other assets, and dispose of them however they wish. You simply don't recognize copyrighted works as being property.
This and the prior comment are just patently absurd, not least of which is that it makes assertions without backing them up at all. The "only" thing that has come from copyright is recycling? There's nothing new or beneficial? It's objectively stupid, all you have to do is use scholar.google.com and you're see piles of new research - all of which is copyrighted.
We've lost history due to copyright? What history? Provide examples. Provide evidence. Copyright doesn't apply to works published prior to 1923, so you're talking about lost history since 1923?
The argument for death + 70 years is that the copyright is a kind of property subject to inheritance. So the author can give a piece of the pie to his kids (or whomever).
Some people simply see copyright as an inhibitor to doing what they want, which is being entertained by or benefiting from other people's hard work without having to compensate them at all for it. There is a problem of orphan works that needs to be better dealt with. And technology still doesn't do a good job of preserving copyright and author metadata when content is converted to various formats (uploaded, downloaded, modified, reuploaded), especially with derivative works where multiple copyrights are attached. This is important because the original author has the right, and therefore should have an immutable ability, to unambiguously define the licensing.
They lack innovation because they lack imagination. Ballmer isn't a futurist. Until he, and the entire VP layer, are gone, we will not see innovation from Microsoft. "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." That, in a world with craptastic cell phone UX. The typical houseplant knew it was a dead paradigm on life support, and anyone who came in to do a half way decent job would get significant market share.
Microsoft desktop OS lifespan is 12+ years to the point most of it's users not only don't expect innovation, they don't want it. And then for the past ~4 years did the polar opposite with their mobile strategy by having zero legacy compatibility, to the degree hardware was being abandoned (no software updates) days after being announced.
MariaDB is the drop in replacement for MySQL, leg by the original MySQL developers. Fedora has moved to it in recently released Fedora 19. And RHEL 7 will support MariaDB at least as an alternative for MySQL. Two months ago Wikipedia moved from MySQL to MariaDB. SkySQL has merged with MariaDB. So the momentum is behind MariaDB.
My first Amex Blue for Business had a chip on it. It wasn't compatible with chip and pin, it was a separate system. Now it has an RFID chip, ExpressPay. And Visa has payWave. And MasterCard as PayPass. They're all separate systems. If a merchant terminal supports contactless, they tend to support all three systems. Google Wallet on Android phones mostly use PayPass. A few earlier ones used payWave.
As for online banking, HSBC business requires a fob. I've asked for them to support Google Authenticator instead so I don't have to keep that fob around with me all the time. None of my other banks do this. UBS now emails or robo calls you with a one time passcode used for MFA in addition to the password. For CitiBank it's username/password only.
Increasingly CIOs don't even understand the tech jargon, regardless who uses it first. They're an MBA with a CIO label on them. Congratulations businesses who have a CIO who can speak business, but is objectively way behind the curve with the IT professions he's supposedly chief of and they're not impressed.
You are correct, it's a Jewish creation story. And the Christian usurpation of it fails to withstand rational scrutiny. Jews do distinguish between different peoples, they're not monogenists. It's not mere tradition, St. Paul and St. Augustine, absolutely insisted that "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" that this sin is inherited, not imitated and pointed to the bible as evidence of this. If we aren't all descended from one pair, Adam and Eve, then there must be multiple falls and that definitely isn't supported by scripture, in all cases in the bible the origin of sin is ascribed only to Adam. And only two avoid original sin, Virgin Mary and Jesus. And that is the reason today's Christians, including Catholics, avoid the question entirely because polygenesis isn't compatible with sources of faith; and monogenesis isn't compatible with scientific understanding. And hence there is conflict.
What you are referring to is supported by the genetic bottleneck theory, reducing the human population to a few thousand breeding pairs. Monogenism proposes precisely one breeding pair, and no genetic problems resulting from the ensuing incest.
Christianity commands all Christians believe in monogenism. Everyone comes from Adam and Eve, because only through the story of their fall, do all humans acquire the stain of original sin. From original sin comes the need for redemption, which is only provided for by Jesus Christ.
The question is: How do you rectify the conflict between religion and science when it comes to monogenism?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the biggest barrier is a quality user experience, not technical barriers. As you say the technical barriers are well understood, and not insurmountable. A huge effort, though, is required to get gmail like quality experience without using Google, on the desktop, and my phone, at all times, anywhere in the world. So that necessarily implies the user can opt into more than one hardware unit in order to ensure their data is replicated, and opt into distributed (and encrypted) copies that aren't in their home in case their singular network pipe goes down. I've been inclined to go with "more" cloud service than go it alone mainly because I have one nasty, but necessary, email account that garners so much spam that as a non-expert with spamassassin I just can't tolerate it. Whereas gmail's spam filtering is just so close to 100% correct. So I can appreciate the importance of this project, as well as the work that will be involved.
Especially a bug that the bug reporter has failed to provide developer quested information in the past 10 days, and was also using an older (in the context of btrfs anything older than 3.11 is old) kernel when the problem occurred? Especially uninteresting in my opinion.
Fortunately, neither you nor Slashdotters in this thread are making copyright law. Your proposal is not merely uncompelling, it's completely stupid, and therefore not a single author or artist has any incentive to agree to it. Apparently you prefer the approach to copyright in China which is: we the people without creativity or skills own every idea of every individual, we do not thank the creative individual for their imagination or ingenuity; authors and artists, GO FUCK YOURSELVES while we steal your awesome shit.
You don't want to pay $20 for a movie, album, or a book, let alone send $20 to a Congress critter suggesting an easier way to legally pillage from authors and artists. You're contributing nothing, yet demanding "GIMME!"
Now you''re coming around to my way of thinking in the first paragraph. Absolutely author's should have the right to so outprice their writings that they effectively stagnate, they make no money, and no one will know or care. But that wasn't your original position.
Every email you've written has copyright attached. It's illegal for anyone to copy and distribution without your permission. Consider it this way, using your prior rationalization (and others, I'm not just picking on you) your copyright on everything you've ever written, should expire and become public domain. All of your emails, documents, presentations, anything, would be fair game for data mining, duplicating intact, or even becoming the basis of a story that ends up selling a million copies of something - but you'd get nothing. And you'd have no control to prevent it once your copyright expires.
You've only exposed a great deficiency of capitalism's exploitation of workers. This is particularly exposed with a product that requires a lot of labor, and a product that also has a long life span. Syndicalism produces a more fair outcome in this case. But regardless you appear to recognize that the laborer has a right to demand X in exchange for Y, effectively without any limitation. And yet you don't extend that same right to define terms to authors and artists, you appear to want them to subsidize that entertainment artery as if it's your right to get free or cheap good entertainment. And I'm saying GFY.
What you propose incentivizes me as an author to not write anything anymore, but to choose another line of work. Already, in both fiction and non-fiction, the good authors are being squeezed out. There's increasing amounts of cheap crap, and there's expensive really good to excellent work. But there's decreasing amounts of just plain good. So good luck getting your fix off the cheap crap out there, while you pine away thinking of ways to screw over the really good to excellent work.
The author should have the right to define the licensing just like any labor worker should have the right to define the terms of their employment. If the person/company buying doesn't like the terms, simple, it's no deal. The labor worker or author can either reduce their price or otherwise soften the terms, or walk away to find another buyer. You're saying that there should be a fixed deal, no negotiation allowed, by taking the ideas of authors as if society has some right to them. Well it doesn't. Just like society doesn't have the right to tell a labor worker he can't negotiate for a raise, or walk.
It's common in art to have completely different selling prices for various members of an edition print. Typically the first ones are less expensive, and they get more expensive - for exactly the same copy of the limited edition run. Again, you're proposing that's crap, the artist has no such right, it should be a fixed price for each copy. And further you're proposing that that all artists should sell at the same price, only differing in how many pieces they sell - more popular artists sell more and thus make more. Well that isn't how that market works, at all.
And then you top it off by saying the author's possibly only source of income should be shut off based on an arbitrary length of time, possibly before they die. Yet someone with shares of stock can die and give those to their kids. You've basically arguing for pillaging the property rights of only authors and artists, while everyone else gets to collect interest for their whole life on savings and other assets, and dispose of them however they wish. You simply don't recognize copyrighted works as being property.
This and the prior comment are just patently absurd, not least of which is that it makes assertions without backing them up at all. The "only" thing that has come from copyright is recycling? There's nothing new or beneficial? It's objectively stupid, all you have to do is use scholar.google.com and you're see piles of new research - all of which is copyrighted. We've lost history due to copyright? What history? Provide examples. Provide evidence. Copyright doesn't apply to works published prior to 1923, so you're talking about lost history since 1923?
The argument for death + 70 years is that the copyright is a kind of property subject to inheritance. So the author can give a piece of the pie to his kids (or whomever).
Some people simply see copyright as an inhibitor to doing what they want, which is being entertained by or benefiting from other people's hard work without having to compensate them at all for it. There is a problem of orphan works that needs to be better dealt with. And technology still doesn't do a good job of preserving copyright and author metadata when content is converted to various formats (uploaded, downloaded, modified, reuploaded), especially with derivative works where multiple copyrights are attached. This is important because the original author has the right, and therefore should have an immutable ability, to unambiguously define the licensing.
They lack innovation because they lack imagination. Ballmer isn't a futurist. Until he, and the entire VP layer, are gone, we will not see innovation from Microsoft. "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." That, in a world with craptastic cell phone UX. The typical houseplant knew it was a dead paradigm on life support, and anyone who came in to do a half way decent job would get significant market share. Microsoft desktop OS lifespan is 12+ years to the point most of it's users not only don't expect innovation, they don't want it. And then for the past ~4 years did the polar opposite with their mobile strategy by having zero legacy compatibility, to the degree hardware was being abandoned (no software updates) days after being announced.
You share public keys, not private keys. If you're sharing private keys, you're doing it wrong.
MariaDB is the drop in replacement for MySQL, leg by the original MySQL developers. Fedora has moved to it in recently released Fedora 19. And RHEL 7 will support MariaDB at least as an alternative for MySQL. Two months ago Wikipedia moved from MySQL to MariaDB. SkySQL has merged with MariaDB. So the momentum is behind MariaDB.
My first Amex Blue for Business had a chip on it. It wasn't compatible with chip and pin, it was a separate system. Now it has an RFID chip, ExpressPay. And Visa has payWave. And MasterCard as PayPass. They're all separate systems. If a merchant terminal supports contactless, they tend to support all three systems. Google Wallet on Android phones mostly use PayPass. A few earlier ones used payWave. As for online banking, HSBC business requires a fob. I've asked for them to support Google Authenticator instead so I don't have to keep that fob around with me all the time. None of my other banks do this. UBS now emails or robo calls you with a one time passcode used for MFA in addition to the password. For CitiBank it's username/password only.
Increasingly CIOs don't even understand the tech jargon, regardless who uses it first. They're an MBA with a CIO label on them. Congratulations businesses who have a CIO who can speak business, but is objectively way behind the curve with the IT professions he's supposedly chief of and they're not impressed.
Another great idea would be for posters to consider either not making things up, or state who has raised concerns (as absurd as they may be).
You are correct, it's a Jewish creation story. And the Christian usurpation of it fails to withstand rational scrutiny. Jews do distinguish between different peoples, they're not monogenists. It's not mere tradition, St. Paul and St. Augustine, absolutely insisted that "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" that this sin is inherited, not imitated and pointed to the bible as evidence of this. If we aren't all descended from one pair, Adam and Eve, then there must be multiple falls and that definitely isn't supported by scripture, in all cases in the bible the origin of sin is ascribed only to Adam. And only two avoid original sin, Virgin Mary and Jesus. And that is the reason today's Christians, including Catholics, avoid the question entirely because polygenesis isn't compatible with sources of faith; and monogenesis isn't compatible with scientific understanding. And hence there is conflict.
What you are referring to is supported by the genetic bottleneck theory, reducing the human population to a few thousand breeding pairs. Monogenism proposes precisely one breeding pair, and no genetic problems resulting from the ensuing incest.
Christianity commands all Christians believe in monogenism. Everyone comes from Adam and Eve, because only through the story of their fall, do all humans acquire the stain of original sin. From original sin comes the need for redemption, which is only provided for by Jesus Christ. The question is: How do you rectify the conflict between religion and science when it comes to monogenism?