Free software is not commonly owned, as you yourself pointed out; not even in a practical sense. Reveal and share != give up ownership in this context (because I can share information with you without losing what I own, or losing my claim on that information. Indeed, this is exactly what the GPL does).
The open-source movement has made many of us long for days of - let's just say it - socialism.
Open source/Free software has nothing in common with socialism.
Open source/Free software makes me, personally, long for the days of freedom: free speech, free ideas, free markets. All three of these are, to some degree, contrary to socialism.
I have no idea where people picked up the idea that freedom of code == socialism, or communism, or anything of the sort, and I fail to see the connection at all.
Since the RIAA has already stated in public that they have no intention of suing Felten, it's pretty obvious to everyone that he is just picking a fight.
And of course, the RIAA can be completely trusted to follow through on non-legally binding public declarations.
This is much more important than "picking a fight" or "getting attention"... this is about defeating a very bad piece of legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
I'm interested in knowing, How did the suits find out?
Anyway, more to the point, support for GNU stuff already exists to a limited extent. You can buy support from Cygnus for gcc/gdb. You can buy support from RedHat for their distros and most of the stuff included therein. Cyclic supports CVS.
And I'm sure there are numerous little startups out there that I don't know about that are getting into this... or maybe they don't exist, and there's a business opportunity for ya.
And then the patient's health insurer says "screw that humanitarian BS, buy the cheap pill. (or pay for the expensive one yourself.)"
In this case it has nothing to do with humanitarianism, but long-term costs. Paying a little extra now to support the R&D teams could save huge down the road when they come up with the super cancer-curing pill (or whatever).
Cheaping out now and not supporting the "brand name" research negates such opportunities.
any competent chemist could do it in a matter of weeks, at most
Well, I'm not a chemist, so I guess I'll have to take your word on that.
The bulk of the cost (both monetary and time) are in a) finding out which chemical is the most effective, and b) doing all the testing--cellular, animal, and human--that is required
Yup. That's about what I figured.
So, in your information campaign, you get your name out there, stressing what Good Guys you are for doing all this research and testing ("Our quality products meet the highest level of testing for your safety", blah blah blah), and "the extra dollars are for quality and continued service" blah blah blah.... just like jeans ads, only less sexy.
Again, government enforced monopolies are not required for any of this.
~$250 million over 8-10 years it takes to get a drug approved, only to see a generic maker clone the drug the day it comes out at half the price?
That's quite the hyperbole. If it takes 8-10 years to develop, somehow I doubt it will be "overnight" before someone figures out how to knock it off, in which case your company still reaps the benefits of being first to market.
And even if there's an overnight clone, there's a lot to be said for brand name recognition. Generic jeans are much cheaper than CK or Levi's, yet CK and Levi's are still in business. Why?
And why couldn't this apply to drug companies as well? If you have $250 million for research, I'm sure you can scrounge up a couple of bucks to put together an effective information campaign about why your product should be supported over the generic knock offs. You don't need government enforced monopolies for any of this.
Your post was pretty well developed right up until this non-sequitor. Why does R&D disappear if patents disappear, exactly?
Patents are government enforced monopolies, and government enforced monopolies are the antithesis of a free market. Would R&D stop without patents? I doubt it very much... there will always be a competitive advantage to being the first to market with innovative products, even without the government granted monopoly on said products.
If you're looking to win at gambling,... play blackjack - that's as close as you're going to get to having "good" odds.
Horse racing is better, since you aren't competing against the house (they just take a fixed cut), but rather you're competing against the other gamblers.
My best summer job was working at the local race track and watching my high school principal gamble away his daughter's inheritance week in, week out.
Has someone tried to claim a patent on this? It's a neat little math trick, but the poster seems a little paranoid.
Well, if it catches on, calendar makers will be out of business, and we can't have that.
Seriously I think this is a swipe at the anti-DeCSS crowd, who are trying to argue that computer code (and, by extension, mathematical algorithms) are not protected speech.
Yeah, but look, an animated movie is always dubbed--that's just how animation is
That's an excellent point, one I certainly didn't consider.
Now that you mention animation, I'm thinking back to my last trip to Mexico and watching "Los Simpsons" in Spanish for the first time. They dub over the animations and guess what... it does work (mostly). (And yes, I do speak Spanish).
Now, the lip synch in FF is probably just a *little* better than the Simpsons, so as the lip synch in the original language gets better and better, dubs in other languages are going to be more and more off. Judging by the trailers, the lip synch in FF is pretty damn close to perfect, so the dubbing is really going to suffer.
As for re-rendering, it probably isn't feasible. There's a little more to lip synching than just re-rendering, methinks.
I don't know about non-English speaking people, but when I watch a foreign movie (ie. not in English), I so much prefer subtitles over dubbing.
Imagine how stupid Crouching Tiger would have been had it been dubbed. This is a two way street: watching English movies on the French channel (here in Canada) that have been dubbed is just silly. Something about Bruce Willis saying "merde" that's just a bit off...
While it may be difficult to prove that Napster helps CD sales, it isn't very difficult to at least demonstrate that Napster doesn't hurt CD sales... the RIAA's own data shows increased CD sales year after year since Napster started, which (I believe) is a strong indication of no harm.
The question of "might they have grown even more without Napster" is, in my mind, in that class of really hard to prove questions that you point out.
This is what... the third such survey that says this, along with the RIAA's own data which shows increased CD sales?
Is it possible for Napster to enter these things as evidence that, far from being "contributory infringers" (or whatever the legal mumbo-jumbo word is), they are in fact "contributory salespeople"?
Often these "Ask Slashdot" questions sound like "do my homework for me"...
Perhaps we could cut out the middle-man if SlashCode simply redirected the text of an Ask Slashdot submission to a Google search.
Not that I think asking questions is bad or anything... it's just this particular question, as you've pointed out, is easily answered with 1 minute of research.
Finally, speaking as one who also works in the games industry, I can add that such a lack of research skills is often looked upon most unfavourably.
Third, the world has shifted from "software as product" to "software as service," where software can be accessed remotely and paid for in per-use or per-time-period licenses.
"has shifted", past tense? When did this happen? Have I been blacking out again?
The last time I was awake, this is where Microsoft was trying to take things.
Oh well. Glad I hopped off the MS treadmill 3 years ago.
Why exactly would other companies (or government) donate hardware (or other capital) to your organization?
Tax benefits.
Investors aren't going to pitch money in unless they see a return, which they aren't going to get.
Which means you look for benefactors, not investors.
It's a nice idea (in a socialist collective kind of way) but I just don't see it getting off the ground
The idea of charity or non-profit is not necessarily socialist. As for not getting off the ground, the FSF has been operating this way pretty much since the beginning.
but the growth of the PC has been in direct relationship with the growth of Windows, and related M$ products
I think you have that backwards.
MS grew because the PC grew, not vice versa.
The so-called IBM PC is as prevelant as it is because of the reverse engineering of the original BIOSes and the relative openness of the PC versus the Mac (for example). Anybody could build a PC, but nobody except Apple could build a Mac.
It's just one more lesson from history where being open is better than being closed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think (but I could be wrong) finding and buying the original cabinets is going to be pretty hard and expensive.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Free software is not commonly owned, as you yourself pointed out; not even in a practical sense. Reveal and share != give up ownership in this context (because I can share information with you without losing what I own, or losing my claim on that information. Indeed, this is exactly what the GPL does).
Ryan T. Sammartino
Open source/Free software has nothing in common with socialism.
Open source/Free software makes me, personally, long for the days of freedom: free speech, free ideas, free markets. All three of these are, to some degree, contrary to socialism.
I have no idea where people picked up the idea that freedom of code == socialism, or communism, or anything of the sort, and I fail to see the connection at all.
Ryan T. Sammartino
And of course, the RIAA can be completely trusted to follow through on non-legally binding public declarations.
This is much more important than "picking a fight" or "getting attention"... this is about defeating a very bad piece of legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Anyway, more to the point, support for GNU stuff already exists to a limited extent. You can buy support from Cygnus for gcc/gdb. You can buy support from RedHat for their distros and most of the stuff included therein. Cyclic supports CVS.
And I'm sure there are numerous little startups out there that I don't know about that are getting into this... or maybe they don't exist, and there's a business opportunity for ya.
Ryan T. Sammartino
In this case it has nothing to do with humanitarianism, but long-term costs. Paying a little extra now to support the R&D teams could save huge down the road when they come up with the super cancer-curing pill (or whatever).
Cheaping out now and not supporting the "brand name" research negates such opportunities.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Well, I'm not a chemist, so I guess I'll have to take your word on that.
The bulk of the cost (both monetary and time) are in a) finding out which chemical is the most effective, and b) doing all the testing--cellular, animal, and human--that is required
Yup. That's about what I figured.
So, in your information campaign, you get your name out there, stressing what Good Guys you are for doing all this research and testing ("Our quality products meet the highest level of testing for your safety", blah blah blah), and "the extra dollars are for quality and continued service" blah blah blah.... just like jeans ads, only less sexy.
Again, government enforced monopolies are not required for any of this.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Another non-sequitur. Why do you need exclusivity to recoup costs, exactly?
Do you really think companies are going to spend money on research which they can't reap the rewards from?
You still can without government enforced monopolies. You're begging the question here... this whole thread has been quite the zoo of fallacies.
Ryan T. Sammartino
That's quite the hyperbole. If it takes 8-10 years to develop, somehow I doubt it will be "overnight" before someone figures out how to knock it off, in which case your company still reaps the benefits of being first to market.
And even if there's an overnight clone, there's a lot to be said for brand name recognition. Generic jeans are much cheaper than CK or Levi's, yet CK and Levi's are still in business. Why? And why couldn't this apply to drug companies as well? If you have $250 million for research, I'm sure you can scrounge up a couple of bucks to put together an effective information campaign about why your product should be supported over the generic knock offs. You don't need government enforced monopolies for any of this.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Your post was pretty well developed right up until this non-sequitor. Why does R&D disappear if patents disappear, exactly?
Patents are government enforced monopolies, and government enforced monopolies are the antithesis of a free market. Would R&D stop without patents? I doubt it very much... there will always be a competitive advantage to being the first to market with innovative products, even without the government granted monopoly on said products.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Horse racing is better, since you aren't competing against the house (they just take a fixed cut), but rather you're competing against the other gamblers.
My best summer job was working at the local race track and watching my high school principal gamble away his daughter's inheritance week in, week out.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Well, if it catches on, calendar makers will be out of business, and we can't have that.
Seriously I think this is a swipe at the anti-DeCSS crowd, who are trying to argue that computer code (and, by extension, mathematical algorithms) are not protected speech.
Ryan T. Sammartino
- Budgeting and Scheduling
- Go here and punch in "Post Mortem"... they contain a lot of useful info about starting up.
- Creating a Design Doc... there are tonnes more like this there.
- Creating a business plan
- And finally the one you probably really want: Birth of a Game Studio
and it just goes on and on and on. GamaSutra is your friend.Ryan T. Sammartino
That's an excellent point, one I certainly didn't consider.
Now that you mention animation, I'm thinking back to my last trip to Mexico and watching "Los Simpsons" in Spanish for the first time. They dub over the animations and guess what... it does work (mostly). (And yes, I do speak Spanish).
Now, the lip synch in FF is probably just a *little* better than the Simpsons, so as the lip synch in the original language gets better and better, dubs in other languages are going to be more and more off. Judging by the trailers, the lip synch in FF is pretty damn close to perfect, so the dubbing is really going to suffer.
As for re-rendering, it probably isn't feasible. There's a little more to lip synching than just re-rendering, methinks.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Imagine how stupid Crouching Tiger would have been had it been dubbed. This is a two way street: watching English movies on the French channel (here in Canada) that have been dubbed is just silly. Something about Bruce Willis saying "merde" that's just a bit off...
Ryan T. Sammartino
The question of "might they have grown even more without Napster" is, in my mind, in that class of really hard to prove questions that you point out.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Is it possible for Napster to enter these things as evidence that, far from being "contributory infringers" (or whatever the legal mumbo-jumbo word is), they are in fact "contributory salespeople"?
Ryan T. Sammartino
Often these "Ask Slashdot" questions sound like "do my homework for me"...
Perhaps we could cut out the middle-man if SlashCode simply redirected the text of an Ask Slashdot submission to a Google search.
Not that I think asking questions is bad or anything... it's just this particular question, as you've pointed out, is easily answered with 1 minute of research.
Finally, speaking as one who also works in the games industry, I can add that such a lack of research skills is often looked upon most unfavourably.
Flame on...
Ryan T. Sammartino
"has shifted", past tense? When did this happen? Have I been blacking out again?
The last time I was awake, this is where Microsoft was trying to take things.
Oh well. Glad I hopped off the MS treadmill 3 years ago.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Yes, but only if they can be bred without vocal chords.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Tax benefits.
Investors aren't going to pitch money in unless they see a return, which they aren't going to get.
Which means you look for benefactors, not investors.
It's a nice idea (in a socialist collective kind of way) but I just don't see it getting off the ground
The idea of charity or non-profit is not necessarily socialist. As for not getting off the ground, the FSF has been operating this way pretty much since the beginning.
Ryan T. Sammartino
The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity (like the Read Cross, apparently).
They use donations and sales of books, CDROMS, etc, to pay developers.
Ryan T. Sammartino
I think you have that backwards.
MS grew because the PC grew, not vice versa.
The so-called IBM PC is as prevelant as it is because of the reverse engineering of the original BIOSes and the relative openness of the PC versus the Mac (for example). Anybody could build a PC, but nobody except Apple could build a Mac.
It's just one more lesson from history where being open is better than being closed.
Ryan T. Sammartino
No, sorry. x86 host, MIPS-like target :)
Ryan T. Sammartino
We aren't racing anyone except ourselves right now, as it is, anyways.
GNOME and KDE race against each other, but neither really pays attention to what comes out of Redmond... nor should they.
If MS vanished, this race would continue, and we'd all continue to benefit from the meme battle.
Ryan T. Sammartino