Jaron Lanier (who some credit with inventing the phrase "virtual reality"), whimsically suggests that, in exchange for being granted U.S. copyright protection, commercial software publishers should have to pay users $1 every time their product screws up.
As much as I prefer Free Software, I think that would only give a predatory government another opportunity to persecute people. I would only support this in cases where the software vendor had given some sort of warantee that the software failed to live up to. In most cases however, software is provided "as is" with no warantee expressed or implied.
I also think that the greatest effect (and a very costly side effect) that will come out of such a law would be the stiffling of innovation since few people or individuals will be willing to produce software in fear of being sued until the cows come home.
Jaron Lanier (who some credit with inventing the phrase "virtual reality"), whimsically suggests that, in exchange for being granted U.S. copyright protection, commercial software publishers should have to pay users $1 every time their product screws up.
As much as I prefer Free Software, I think that would only give a predatory government another opportunity to persecute people. I would only support this in cases where the software vendor had given some sort of warantee that the software failed to live up to. In most cases however, software is provided "as is" with no warantee expressed or implied.
I would like to suggest an often over-looked means of raising money for publicly specified intellectual property endeavours: Donations. I know the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) accepts donations and are strictly not-for-profit (which makes them so much more trustworthy), and they really are very productive and efficient with their funds. These efforts need our support. Many of the programmers for the FSF are volunteers, but they really do need our help and they do a very good job of providing free excellent software tools for the community.
My fear is that if volunteer and not-for-profit groups like the FSF should fold because of a lack of funding, all we would be left with is money-based interests seeking to control and monopolize our software tools. Although this does not necessarily translate into a bad thing per se, it is still always a greater benefit for the public to have an alternative and one that is open and free to keep the rest in check.
So please make an effort to support these community-oriented groups. It is only to our benefit.
Let us take a look at the patent issue a bit: What the original purpose of patents was, how this purpose seems to be overlooked by even the government (USPO) these days, and how they are being abused by individuals and corporations. This discussion seems long overdue.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or any kind of expert, and I have read very little on patents. I am only going by what seems to me to be common sense, and with the greater good of the public as my intent.
It seems to me that patents were intended to encourage innovation (innovation here meaning something considerably different, original, and new; something for which there was no prior art; an original solution), bring these innovations out to the public for the greater good of the public, and reward innovators for their contributions by giving them the rights to the innovation and its licensing for a period of time. All these things were to be done for the greater good and advantage of the public. The thinking was that in offering patents, people would be more encouraged to come forth with their innovations (instead of concealing their methods and monopolizing them), and would be duly rewarded (instead of having the idea taken by someone else and capitalized upon with no reward given to the original inventor). In other words, patents were designed to increase our knowledge-base, produce new solutions for all, and protect and reward innovators. It was supposed to be a win-win situation for all involved.
Lately however, I get the impression that many individuals and corporate entities (amazon.com immediately jumps into mind) have applied for patents for which there was considerable prior art, and/or whatever contributions they supposedly made produced so little innovation, but yet in the ignorance of the United States Patent Office, these patents, many of which were obviously ridiculous, were granted. It is fully understandable that the USPO cannot possibly investigate perfectly for the inexistence of prior art and the validity of a patent application, but some of the approvals have indeed been very ridiculous. A patent for One-click shopping?! What nonsense! Furthermore, considering the rate at which things change in this technology-facilitated world and that this rate is sure to only accelarate, patents become so much more crucial or costly to society. (I think that the duration of patents to be granted is another major issue to be looked at.) To add insult to injury, many of these individuals and corporate entities that have unjustifiably received patents have gone on to enforce them and sue others that have supposedly violated their patents, thereby seriously stiffling innovation. In the end, these errors by the USPO only end up being more detrimental to society than anything else.
Tell me what you think. Any correction or enlightenment is very much appreciated.
> What in the entire Universe is easier to share than information?
Somewhat ironically, it's easier to share entropy!
Entropy??? How? I must admit that that is a most interesting response and that you have me, but now I REALLY want to hear how it is easier to share entropy.
Entropy is a measure of disorder in the Universe, and its increase in any process is a law; For any and every process, it assuredly will increase. I understand this. However, I do not understand how you can "share" entropy. I know whatever I do increases it, whatever you do increases it, whatever we do increases it, but I still do not understand how you can even share entropy and do so in such a way that it is easier than information to share.
Just as I was about to post, I had a second thought: By virtue of us all being in the same universe, any disorder in the universe (and hence entropy), no matter the source, will be shared by all. We have all heard the saying, "No man is an island." The problems we create will be shared eventually by all. So I guess I see your point, and if I reason correctly, you are right.
What bio-electric field??? That's my first impression as an electrical engineer. The human body is hardly ferro-magnetic or anything like that. There may be slight charges as with anything else, but as it is mostly organic, those charges are extremely minute. If they were significant, the study would be easy: just hold a measuring device close to the body.
But that's just the first problem. The other issue is that humans simply aren't equipped with senses (neural or otherwise) to detect electro-magnetic fields. This isn't surprising. There are many things we cannot detect even though they may be real, and affect us for better or for worse. We cannot detect radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, etc.
There is a third problem beyond the first two above, and that has to do with "manipulating" such a field. There is simply no evidence to suggest that humans can manipulate electro-magnetic fields. Hello! Otherwise, I could simply deflect the next radio wave that came my way.
I will not deny the fact however, that it sometimes feels good to have someone around you. It feels good to have some people very close to you. It feels good to be cared for. It feels good to our bodies to get a massage. We can also sometimes feel the presense of a person: we can see them, we can hear them, we can feel their body heat. We have senses for these things, and sometimes, their outputs are pleasant. By the way others touch and interact with us, we can pay attention to each other, and share our emotions. This however, does not mean that there is an electric field that can be felt and manipulated, and that such a field is the cause of the afore-mentioned effects.
Alright, enough said. Like they say, "A word is enough for the wise." Use some common sense. You have a brain. Don't put your precious time, energy, or money into foolish things. Some fallacies are very easy to recognize.
Diversity can be good. It gives you choice, it promotes creativity, and it promotes freedom.
Standardization can be good. It prevents chaos, dupicity, and redundancy, and allows predictability and consistence in the implementation.
Things can get better faster in a diverse environment. However, when the best way to solve a problem has been found and an implementation is optimized, it only makes sense to standardize it and then move on to other areas that need optimization, choosing from the diversity that we have. This way, we are always solving problems and we waste less time, energy, and brain-power in redundant duplication. When things get to the point that the standard is outdated, we propose a new one and from the diversity we have.
So indeed, with free software, we can have the best of both worlds. We have a rich yet open specification with a most diverse feature set, as well as the freedom and ability to choose as we desire. With free software, we also have an excellent system of checks and balances - if predatory methods are included in a package, we have a multitude of others to choose in its stead. The worst that could happen is that we take the parts that are desirable from that package and develope our own without having to start from scratch. (Little wonder why proprietary corporations hate us.) There is also another subtle advantage to publicly-specified intellectual property: Peer review. Since we have the entire intellectual resources of the internet, when there is a problem or a bug with an implementation, it is quickly pointed out and a solution is immediately proposed.
And compared to proprietary methods, we do this at a cost next to nothing. (Now they really fear us.)
They attempt to make us dependent on them,
but it simply increases our desire for freedom.
They attempt to control us with their code,
but instead we are motivated to write our own.
Don't be impressed, and more importantly, don't be fooled..NET IS the platform, stupid! They have just altered the game a bit, but the strategy and the aim is still the same - vendor lock-in and world domination. It doesn't matter how and under what operating system you develope for.NET. Even if you run Linux locally, you are still developing for and under.NET. The stakes are even higher this time, considering it isn't just a local operating system, but a global internet-wide platform.
Unless.NET is an openly specified standard, it may as well be Windows to me.
I think there is a better way to fight the RIAA, and one that is perfectly legal.
First of all, I must say that we are the ones who are fools in agreeing to buy music that denies us of the freedom to distribute it. My suggestion is to keep our hands clean. If we don't like the terms of an agreement, boycott it massively. Don't tolerate it. Boycott it until they get the message. Make your opponent see that there is something like a fair-use policy, and that they should be fair if you have paid for the music. Freedom! Nothing else will suffice. If you don't give us the freedom, we don't pay for it. (Kind of similar to my rejection of closed software that usually doesn't allow you access to the source code of software you buy, makes you pay for each user, and doesn't allow you to distribute it, legally anyway.)
To re-iterate my point, if it is unfair, REJECT IT. Running around the law isn't the way to do things - though you may be in the right, it only makes you look bad. Buy and support only things that respect your freedom. In the long run, the greed that has led these people and corporate entities to unfair practices, will also lead to their losing money - the only thing that they seem to understand, cherish and indeed worship.
.... The next generation or two of machines come out that smoke yours in the areas you want to do? Will you still be content to hang on to your old machine, when closed proprietary systems set up new "standards" that effectively orphan your machine from the 'Net, or whatever's up and coming to replace what you hold dear today?
Extremely good point. However, controlling proprietary systems only serve to encourage the public to endeavour to develope alternative free, public implementations.
What happens to the growth of Linux or any other alternative platform when you can't go to a parts shop and build the Dream Machine of 2005?
That will only encourage us to develope free, publicly standardized and specified hardware. This has already begun with efforts like www.opencores.org.
What happens when you can't even buy a software license but have to RENT it month to month?
GNU/Linux will be even more embraced.
The writing is on the wall. All these predatory companies will now have to justify why we must spend all this money on their software without having the source code when there are free and openly specified alternatives.
I am an almost full-time GNU/Linux user, and an avid advocate for free software and publicly owned and specified intellectual property in general. I have been critical of Microsoft in the past because of their controlling character and insatiable greed, but all this Microsoft bashing is getting old. The excessive bashing may also indicate that Microsoft has been somewhat innovative, and, as a result, successful. I don't know of anyone trustworthy enough to be given control over the Internet or all technology, speak less of a corporate entity which exists solely for the purpose of making money. However, even though Microsoft seems to be a selfish, greedy, and controlling company that seeks to dominate the world, I really do think that the problem lies more with us when we vote with our dollars to implement their technology throughout our systems, instead of using free/open source alternatives which are as good, cost-free, liberatingly-free, and vendor lock-in-combating.
Flame at will. (Though I may disagree with what you say, I remain appreciative of your freedom to do so.)
If Napster is somehow at fault for facilitating the sharing of copyrighted music, shouldn't Dell also bear some responsibility for manufacturing the computer I use to download? Shouldn't Microsoft bear some responsibility for providing the operating system I use to download? Shouldn't all the people that download the music bear some responsibility? Shouldn't all the people that actually SHARE their music bear some responsibility? We can go forever.
The issue is that even though Napster doesn't store any files on its servers, it is an easy target. Hence the RIAA goes after Napster. Napster doesn't do anything but say, "Hey, you want this file, well he has it". You then go there and download it. Shutting Napster down, in my opinion, is therefore a violation of its rights to free speech. Everyone knows this but somehow, the powerful RIAA has gotten the judicial system to buckle.
The funny thing is that they will be unsuccessful if they think that they can curb the flow of information. What in the entire Universe is easier to share than information? They are also very wrong if they think that somehow they will make more money by doing this.
I think Linux on MIPS hasn't prospered for a few reasons: 1) The brute-force speed of the Intel and AMD chips, and 2) the simple fact that Linus began his developement on and for the Intel 80x86 platform. I personally am a fan of the MIPS/RISC architecture and actually had to design a simulation of one in my undergrad days. I just love the ingenious simplicity in the architecture. But the reality is that at the time, the Intel standard pretty much dominated the low-end and more affordable PC market. There were much better Unix systems available even then but they were just too expensive for the average joe.
Think also about the educational advantage to computer science students. Can you imagine being able to look at the interior design of an Alpha or UltraSPARC, or PowerPC CPU, assuming these had been available? Assuming simulators were available, one could step through the execution of such a machine. I admit this isn't as easy as running you everyday Windows program, and even if it was, it would take higher learning to understand enough to make improvements. But the possibility and the advantage of such are still there. Another major advantage would be that it would be more difficult to be controlled by any single monopolizing company, or be forced into vendor lock-in.
It's really the intellectual property that matters, that this is freely available to the public. Anyone can then take this design specification to a manufacturer with a fabricator lab and have it designed. The fact that these designs will be freely avialable to the public is what is new, but designing hardware from specification certainly is not (Sun Microsystems' SPARC Microprocessor is designed by Texas Instruments. Before even a single componenent is produced, the entire chip is simulated in software!)
The important thing here is that the best ideas of the public are put into the design(s) for the benefit of all the public. That way, anyone attempting to design that type of hardware does not have to begin from scratch, re-inventing the wheel, but can just pick up where others left off and add improvements. I think this is most important essence of the Free Intellectual Property ideal. *That the best resources of the world are put to use in designing solutions for the entire community*. Another subtle advantage is peer review. No single person has all the best ideas; wherever an idea is found wanting, it can be debated upon, and the best idea adopted. The fact that it is totally Free and almost free certainly helps too.
Anti-semitism only adds to the problem of hatred and intolerance already prevalent in our society.
We must forever remain aware of, and guard against what such hatred caused in the 20th century: the century of the greatest bloodshed in human history.
We need an on-line database profiling the policies, practices, and habits of corporations (both in the ways that are positive, and in the ways that they are predatory), in order to protect the privacy and liberty of individuals. This way, we can more effectively boycott any companies that engage in predatory business practices.
Corporations have been doing this against us for so long - sharing and even selling personal information about their customers. It is time to turn the tables around. We have no choice but to try and protect ourselves also.
Maybe to you, but I certainly didn't have that readme file and found it useful. Besides, he's entitled to his freedom of speech and it didn't hurt anyone or anything to post it (except you, I guess).
Slashdot Mirror
Jaron Lanier (who some credit with inventing the phrase "virtual reality"), whimsically suggests that, in exchange for being granted U.S. copyright protection, commercial software publishers should have to pay users $1 every time their product screws up.
As much as I prefer Free Software, I think that would only give a predatory government another opportunity to persecute people. I would only support this in cases where the software vendor had given some sort of warantee that the software failed to live up to. In most cases however, software is provided "as is" with no warantee expressed or implied.
I also think that the greatest effect (and a very costly side effect) that will come out of such a law would be the stiffling of innovation since few people or individuals will be willing to produce software in fear of being sued until the cows come home.
Jaron Lanier (who some credit with inventing the phrase "virtual reality"), whimsically suggests that, in exchange for being granted U.S. copyright protection, commercial software publishers should have to pay users $1 every time their product screws up.
As much as I prefer Free Software, I think that would only give a predatory government another opportunity to persecute people. I would only support this in cases where the software vendor had given some sort of warantee that the software failed to live up to. In most cases however, software is provided "as is" with no warantee expressed or implied.
I would like to suggest an often over-looked means of raising money for publicly specified intellectual property endeavours: Donations. I know the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) accepts donations and are strictly not-for-profit (which makes them so much more trustworthy), and they really are very productive and efficient with their funds. These efforts need our support. Many of the programmers for the FSF are volunteers, but they really do need our help and they do a very good job of providing free excellent software tools for the community.
My fear is that if volunteer and not-for-profit groups like the FSF should fold because of a lack of funding, all we would be left with is money-based interests seeking to control and monopolize our software tools. Although this does not necessarily translate into a bad thing per se, it is still always a greater benefit for the public to have an alternative and one that is open and free to keep the rest in check.
So please make an effort to support these community-oriented groups. It is only to our benefit.
Let us take a look at the patent issue a bit: What the original purpose of patents was, how this purpose seems to be overlooked by even the government (USPO) these days, and how they are being abused by individuals and corporations. This discussion seems long overdue.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or any kind of expert, and I have read very little on patents. I am only going by what seems to me to be common sense, and with the greater good of the public as my intent.
It seems to me that patents were intended to encourage innovation (innovation here meaning something considerably different, original, and new; something for which there was no prior art; an original solution), bring these innovations out to the public for the greater good of the public, and reward innovators for their contributions by giving them the rights to the innovation and its licensing for a period of time. All these things were to be done for the greater good and advantage of the public. The thinking was that in offering patents, people would be more encouraged to come forth with their innovations (instead of concealing their methods and monopolizing them), and would be duly rewarded (instead of having the idea taken by someone else and capitalized upon with no reward given to the original inventor). In other words, patents were designed to increase our knowledge-base, produce new solutions for all, and protect and reward innovators. It was supposed to be a win-win situation for all involved.
Lately however, I get the impression that many individuals and corporate entities (amazon.com immediately jumps into mind) have applied for patents for which there was considerable prior art, and/or whatever contributions they supposedly made produced so little innovation, but yet in the ignorance of the United States Patent Office, these patents, many of which were obviously ridiculous, were granted. It is fully understandable that the USPO cannot possibly investigate perfectly for the inexistence of prior art and the validity of a patent application, but some of the approvals have indeed been very ridiculous. A patent for One-click shopping?! What nonsense! Furthermore, considering the rate at which things change in this technology-facilitated world and that this rate is sure to only accelarate, patents become so much more crucial or costly to society. (I think that the duration of patents to be granted is another major issue to be looked at.) To add insult to injury, many of these individuals and corporate entities that have unjustifiably received patents have gone on to enforce them and sue others that have supposedly violated their patents, thereby seriously stiffling innovation. In the end, these errors by the USPO only end up being more detrimental to society than anything else.
Tell me what you think. Any correction or enlightenment is very much appreciated.
> What in the entire Universe is easier to share than information?
Somewhat ironically, it's easier to share entropy!
Entropy??? How? I must admit that that is a most interesting response and that you have me, but now I REALLY want to hear how it is easier to share entropy.
Entropy is a measure of disorder in the Universe, and its increase in any process is a law; For any and every process, it assuredly will increase. I understand this. However, I do not understand how you can "share" entropy. I know whatever I do increases it, whatever you do increases it, whatever we do increases it, but I still do not understand how you can even share entropy and do so in such a way that it is easier than information to share.
Just as I was about to post, I had a second thought: By virtue of us all being in the same universe, any disorder in the universe (and hence entropy), no matter the source, will be shared by all. We have all heard the saying, "No man is an island." The problems we create will be shared eventually by all. So I guess I see your point, and if I reason correctly, you are right.
Thanks for the insight.
What bio-electric field??? That's my first impression as an electrical engineer. The human body is hardly ferro-magnetic or anything like that. There may be slight charges as with anything else, but as it is mostly organic, those charges are extremely minute. If they were significant, the study would be easy: just hold a measuring device close to the body.
But that's just the first problem. The other issue is that humans simply aren't equipped with senses (neural or otherwise) to detect electro-magnetic fields. This isn't surprising. There are many things we cannot detect even though they may be real, and affect us for better or for worse. We cannot detect radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, etc.
There is a third problem beyond the first two above, and that has to do with "manipulating" such a field. There is simply no evidence to suggest that humans can manipulate electro-magnetic fields. Hello! Otherwise, I could simply deflect the next radio wave that came my way.
I will not deny the fact however, that it sometimes feels good to have someone around you. It feels good to have some people very close to you. It feels good to be cared for. It feels good to our bodies to get a massage. We can also sometimes feel the presense of a person: we can see them, we can hear them, we can feel their body heat. We have senses for these things, and sometimes, their outputs are pleasant. By the way others touch and interact with us, we can pay attention to each other, and share our emotions. This however, does not mean that there is an electric field that can be felt and manipulated, and that such a field is the cause of the afore-mentioned effects.
Alright, enough said. Like they say, "A word is enough for the wise." Use some common sense. You have a brain. Don't put your precious time, energy, or money into foolish things. Some fallacies are very easy to recognize.
Diversity can be good. It gives you choice, it promotes creativity, and it promotes freedom.
Standardization can be good. It prevents chaos, dupicity, and redundancy, and allows predictability and consistence in the implementation.
Things can get better faster in a diverse environment. However, when the best way to solve a problem has been found and an implementation is optimized, it only makes sense to standardize it and then move on to other areas that need optimization, choosing from the diversity that we have. This way, we are always solving problems and we waste less time, energy, and brain-power in redundant duplication. When things get to the point that the standard is outdated, we propose a new one and from the diversity we have.
So indeed, with free software, we can have the best of both worlds. We have a rich yet open specification with a most diverse feature set, as well as the freedom and ability to choose as we desire. With free software, we also have an excellent system of checks and balances - if predatory methods are included in a package, we have a multitude of others to choose in its stead. The worst that could happen is that we take the parts that are desirable from that package and develope our own without having to start from scratch. (Little wonder why proprietary corporations hate us.) There is also another subtle advantage to publicly-specified intellectual property: Peer review. Since we have the entire intellectual resources of the internet, when there is a problem or a bug with an implementation, it is quickly pointed out and a solution is immediately proposed.
And compared to proprietary methods, we do this at a cost next to nothing. (Now they really fear us.)
They attempt to make us dependent on them,
but it simply increases our desire for freedom.
They attempt to control us with their code,
but instead we are motivated to write our own.
I buy my first computer, and immediately, it is declared stupid.
Don't be impressed, and more importantly, don't be fooled. .NET IS the platform, stupid! They have just altered the game a bit, but the strategy and the aim is still the same - vendor lock-in and world domination. It doesn't matter how and under what operating system you develope for .NET. Even if you run Linux locally, you are still developing for and under .NET. The stakes are even higher this time, considering it isn't just a local operating system, but a global internet-wide platform.
.NET is an openly specified standard, it may as well be Windows to me.
Unless
I think there is a better way to fight the RIAA, and one that is perfectly legal.
First of all, I must say that we are the ones who are fools in agreeing to buy music that denies us of the freedom to distribute it. My suggestion is to keep our hands clean. If we don't like the terms of an agreement, boycott it massively. Don't tolerate it. Boycott it until they get the message. Make your opponent see that there is something like a fair-use policy, and that they should be fair if you have paid for the music. Freedom! Nothing else will suffice. If you don't give us the freedom, we don't pay for it. (Kind of similar to my rejection of closed software that usually doesn't allow you access to the source code of software you buy, makes you pay for each user, and doesn't allow you to distribute it, legally anyway.)
To re-iterate my point, if it is unfair, REJECT IT. Running around the law isn't the way to do things - though you may be in the right, it only makes you look bad. Buy and support only things that respect your freedom. In the long run, the greed that has led these people and corporate entities to unfair practices, will also lead to their losing money - the only thing that they seem to understand, cherish and indeed worship.
Actually, I'd rather have the Honda RC-51 for its outstanding performance, fun level, and looks.
.... The next generation or two of machines come out that smoke yours in the areas you want to do? Will you still be content to hang on to your old machine, when closed proprietary systems set up new "standards" that effectively orphan your machine from the 'Net, or whatever's up and coming to replace what you hold dear today?
Extremely good point. However, controlling proprietary systems only serve to encourage the public to endeavour to develope alternative free, public implementations.
What happens to the growth of Linux or any other alternative platform when you can't go to a parts shop and build the Dream Machine of 2005?
That will only encourage us to develope free, publicly standardized and specified hardware. This has already begun with efforts like www.opencores.org.
What happens when you can't even buy a software license but have to RENT it month to month?
GNU/Linux will be even more embraced.
The writing is on the wall. All these predatory companies will now have to justify why we must spend all this money on their software without having the source code when there are free and openly specified alternatives.
I am an almost full-time GNU/Linux user, and an avid advocate for free software and publicly owned and specified intellectual property in general. I have been critical of Microsoft in the past because of their controlling character and insatiable greed, but all this Microsoft bashing is getting old. The excessive bashing may also indicate that Microsoft has been somewhat innovative, and, as a result, successful. I don't know of anyone trustworthy enough to be given control over the Internet or all technology, speak less of a corporate entity which exists solely for the purpose of making money. However, even though Microsoft seems to be a selfish, greedy, and controlling company that seeks to dominate the world, I really do think that the problem lies more with us when we vote with our dollars to implement their technology throughout our systems, instead of using free/open source alternatives which are as good, cost-free, liberatingly-free, and vendor lock-in-combating.
Flame at will. (Though I may disagree with what you say, I remain appreciative of your freedom to do so.)
If Napster is somehow at fault for facilitating the sharing of copyrighted music, shouldn't Dell also bear some responsibility for manufacturing the computer I use to download? Shouldn't Microsoft bear some responsibility for providing the operating system I use to download? Shouldn't all the people that download the music bear some responsibility? Shouldn't all the people that actually SHARE their music bear some responsibility? We can go forever.
The issue is that even though Napster doesn't store any files on its servers, it is an easy target. Hence the RIAA goes after Napster. Napster doesn't do anything but say, "Hey, you want this file, well he has it". You then go there and download it. Shutting Napster down, in my opinion, is therefore a violation of its rights to free speech. Everyone knows this but somehow, the powerful RIAA has gotten the judicial system to buckle.
The funny thing is that they will be unsuccessful if they think that they can curb the flow of information. What in the entire Universe is easier to share than information? They are also very wrong if they think that somehow they will make more money by doing this.
Free Software WILL get there.
I think Linux on MIPS hasn't prospered for a few reasons: 1) The brute-force speed of the Intel and AMD chips, and 2) the simple fact that Linus began his developement on and for the Intel 80x86 platform. I personally am a fan of the MIPS/RISC architecture and actually had to design a simulation of one in my undergrad days. I just love the ingenious simplicity in the architecture. But the reality is that at the time, the Intel standard pretty much dominated the low-end and more affordable PC market. There were much better Unix systems available even then but they were just too expensive for the average joe.
Think also about the educational advantage to computer science students. Can you imagine being able to look at the interior design of an Alpha or UltraSPARC, or PowerPC CPU, assuming these had been available? Assuming simulators were available, one could step through the execution of such a machine. I admit this isn't as easy as running you everyday Windows program, and even if it was, it would take higher learning to understand enough to make improvements. But the possibility and the advantage of such are still there. Another major advantage would be that it would be more difficult to be controlled by any single monopolizing company, or be forced into vendor lock-in.
It's really the intellectual property that matters, that this is freely available to the public. Anyone can then take this design specification to a manufacturer with a fabricator lab and have it designed. The fact that these designs will be freely avialable to the public is what is new, but designing hardware from specification certainly is not (Sun Microsystems' SPARC Microprocessor is designed by Texas Instruments. Before even a single componenent is produced, the entire chip is simulated in software!)
The important thing here is that the best ideas of the public are put into the design(s) for the benefit of all the public. That way, anyone attempting to design that type of hardware does not have to begin from scratch, re-inventing the wheel, but can just pick up where others left off and add improvements. I think this is most important essence of the Free Intellectual Property ideal. *That the best resources of the world are put to use in designing solutions for the entire community*. Another subtle advantage is peer review. No single person has all the best ideas; wherever an idea is found wanting, it can be debated upon, and the best idea adopted. The fact that it is totally Free and almost free certainly helps too.
The Free Software Foundation.
Anti-semitism only adds to the problem of hatred and intolerance already prevalent in our society.
We must forever remain aware of, and guard against what such hatred caused in the 20th century: the century of the greatest bloodshed in human history.
1. Good medical attention, and
2. For my personal records to stay private.
We need an on-line database profiling the policies, practices, and habits of corporations (both in the ways that are positive, and in the ways that they are predatory), in order to protect the privacy and liberty of individuals. This way, we can more effectively boycott any companies that engage in predatory business practices.
Corporations have been doing this against us for so long - sharing and even selling personal information about their customers. It is time to turn the tables around. We have no choice but to try and protect ourselves also.
Maybe to you, but I certainly didn't have that readme file and found it useful. Besides, he's entitled to his freedom of speech and it didn't hurt anyone or anything to post it (except you, I guess).
In other words, you shut your trap and get lost.