As far as why it would have to be a "white or asian male," I think the original AC for some reason assumes that either only white or asian males are rich enough, or that only white or asian males would want to be cloned.
Cloning will also never be popular unless the person paying for the service (a rich white or asian male) can replicate himself, or his son.
Can someone clarify what the reasoning for this is?
Yes. Why pay mucho $$$ for an expensive and risky cloning procedure to produce an "offspring" that isn't genetically related, when cheaper, safer, more conventional methods exist (like donor egg/sperm, or the cheapest and safest: adoption) that produce the exact same result?
I'm completely dead set against the CBDTPA. But, I thought I would throw some counter arguments out there, and see what our responses to them would be:
1.3 So what's the problem?
The problem is that copyright protections have become too strong. For the past 200 years, legislation and court decisions preserved a careful balance between the need to protect the rights of creators and the need to protect the rights of citizens. Sometimes those rights come into conflict, for example when a reviewer wants to quote a passage from a novel or when a TV fan wants to record a show in order to watch it later. In the case of such conflicts, citizens were often given reasonable flexibility to use legally purchased content in a convenient manner.
However, that balance has been dramatically shifted by recent copyright laws. Today, citizens have practically no legal rights to use content that they own. We simply want to restore the fair and reasonable balance that served us for two centuries.
But isn't there a fundamental difference in today's technology and so-called "fair use?" If a reviewer quotes part of a book, only a small portion of that book is duplicated and make freely available. If a home viewer tapes a show on a VCR, the most he can do is run a few copies off for friends. But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders? How do you propose we stem illegal distribution of copyrighted material, other than mandating that copy-thwarting be built into any device that can read the original work?
I should amend it to read "flawless when played on a crappy analog TV set." You really can't tell much of a difference between a decent VCD encoding and an SVCD encoding of the same analog TV show played on the same analog TV set, through the same garden variety DVD player.
Let me tell you a secret: The world has billions of people, many MANY MANY MANY could serve your function (as relates to your employer) very well. So, you are many and they are few... tell me, who has the power in this relationship?
If there are many many many people who could serve some function, any function, then we, as the human population benefit: we possess an unlimited and inexhaustible amount of Human Resource. The "employers", therefore, are merely facilitators that make use of this resource.
But spare me the ego and bravado you are encouraged to have. Non-Americans can tell by observation and casual contact that Americans are recipients of copious amounts of propaganda which fosters this illusion of personal power.
I don't understand this conception that there is an adversarial relationship between the employer and the employed. There isn't, anymore than there is an adversarial relationship between a field of corn and the farmer who farms it. Business, corporations, capitalism in general -- when it is properly adjusted and regulated -- is nothing more than a means of extracting a raw resource, i.e., human capacity, and using it to generate finished wealth.
Why do people talk about "those who code for the Software Industry(TM)" and "those who code open source for kicks" as if they are two different and separate groups of people? I don't have any numbers, but I would be willing to bet that there is more than a little bit of overlap here.
Why do people talk about commercial software and IP as if it's somehow -damaging- to free software? If anything, it's a boon to Free Software, because it gives the Free Software developers a day job!
But here's the thing: Proprietary software is always going to have a leg up in the marketplace over free software, because proprietary software is designed from the ground up to appeal to users in the target market. Linux fans may complain about the UI fluff in Windows, but that fluff is there because people like it. People who code for kicks aren't interested in fluff; they're interested in making cool applications and systems. But "coolness" isn't necessarily what sells. See what I'm getting at?
My, you are paranoid. Anyhoo, the fact of the matter is that ordinary folks are not flocking to Linux in droves. There is a reason for that, and it's not because Microsoft is forcing Windows into their hands at gunpoint.
I would argue its not "property" at all - its a simple agreement. One that is proving to costly for citizens of the public to support - see Microsoft-The-Monopolists and The Anti-Piracy-Police-Extortion-Cartel, Disney's Infinite Copyright the DMCA and the SSSCA/CBDTPA.
I would actually like to separate these out and say a bit about each of them:
Microsoft-The-Monopolists: I'll be the first to say that I can't stand the way Microsoft has handled their Windows monopoly. But the MS monopoly has not cost the public or hurt consumers at large in any real way. It's hurt the software business tremendously, but the end user gets the sweet end of the deal: cheap computers loaded with tons of useful software out of the box. Millions of people using the same software, being able to share information quickly and easily. Yes, AND the odd BSOD, but the benefits to the consumer have been overwhelmingly positive.
The Anti-Piracy-Police-Extortion-Cartel: No one is forcing anyone to buy software with draconian EULAs. It's not like free alternatives don't exist. No one is forced to pirate software. Don't like the EULA? Don't buy the software. Don't like the enforcement methods? Don't pirate software.
Disney's Infinite Copyright: This is a question of degree with regards to Intellectual Property. I certainly don't agree that IP is a God-given right from birth, or that IP should be perpetual and immutable. To say that infinite copyright is stupid is not the same thing as saying IP should be banished. But all that aside, does it really matter who is and isn't allowed to draw Mickey Mouse?
DMCA and the SSSCA/CBDTPA: This isn't an IP issue at all. This is about the freedom to do what we want with our own property, in our own homes. I am completely against the DCMA and CBDTPA, but not because I don't think the movie studios don't have the right to protect their own lousy movie from being copied. Just because the studios can't figure out how to keep their DVDs from being Napsterized, does not give them the right to come into my home and tell me what software I can and cannot run, and what my hardware is and isn't allowed to do.
I think most folks against the CBDTPA right now agree that violating copyright is bad. Copyright and IP isn't the issue.
Too bad Kohler came along and ripped off the original designer's method. The inventer, in fact, makes nothing, gives up on inventing better toilets, and becomes a plumber for a living. The world is deprived of yet another great toilet designer, because there is no Intellectual Property.
And, what prevents your employer from sticking a piece of GPL software in a box and selling it?
Among other things, CD burners and rival software companies.
If Plumbers are not allowed to extract a royalty or fee from flushing the toilet, how are they supposed to make money from their work?
If toilet designers invent a method for creating a toilet that uses 50% less water when flushed, and never back up, should they not be allowed to market and profit from this method?
When your employer sells a license - do you get a royalty? You are paid for the time you write code -- as am I -- why do you expect to be paid again, and again, and again - see the plumber point again please. Further, think about "Intellectual Property" (which is borne by a moment and act (like anything else)) vs "Property".
I make a contractual agreement with my employer: what I invent is sold to them, and becomes their property. It's called terms of employment. What they do with their own property (e.g., put it in shrink-wrapped boxes and sell it) is up to them. I don't expect to be paid again and again, because I've agreed to sell the rights to another party. If I don't like the arrangement, I can go work somewhere else, or become a plumber.
And Children prefer candy over green-beans. Do you let your children sit down to a meal of cake and suger-candy? (Soccer Mom Whimper: "Wont someone please think of the children!")
The battle would be more easily won by the green beans if the green beans weren't on a shelf ten feet high, in a can made from half-inch-thick tin. Anyway, a better analogy would be this: most Open Source software is like a car that gets 60 mpg, and has built-in collision avoidance to keep you out of accidents, but also has the look of a '92 Yugo, and places the stick-shift behind the front passenger seat.
>Fantasy belief number four: users will struggle through hours upon hours of painful software configuration in order to thwart the Evil Software Empire.
Who is struggling? GNU/Linux gets "easier" by the day, its not "MS Easy" vs "GNU/Linux Hard" its "Familiar" vs "unFamiliar".
Since I've started using Linux in early 1998, I've seen it get easier in small, incremental steps. Software installation and configuration, and most user tasks beyond things like web browsing are a major chore. Typical Linux zealots balk at this notion with one of the following:
1. "No it's not!" Ok, put a third-party software CD in the drive, select "install", have the software install with minimal user intervention, and place shortcuts automatically in the root menu. What, "tar xfvz;./configure;make;make install"? Why?
2. "It's good that it's hard, because it teaches you how to use your computer properly." No, it teaches you how to use UNIX. Most people aren't interested in using UNIX. They're interested in using their computers.
3. "Click and drool interfaces are inferior to the command line. So what if the GUI is clunky, you shouldn't be using it in the first place."
The fundamental thing to remember is that "easy to use" for developers and gurus, and "easy to use" for end users are two very different things.
I'm bent about the whole Linux situation. Making Linux as smooth and easy as a Windows or Mac interface is Not a hard thing to do. Yet, year after year, the developers consistently refuse/fail to do this. Rather than make things easier, they make things needlessly complicated, to the point at which a modern Linux GUI won't run on a Pentium 200 with 32 MB of RAM without bringing the entire system to a grinding halt!
Then, RMS gets in front of everyone and moralizes endlessly about how wonderful Free Software is, and how it's going to take the place of Evil, Bad, Buggy Proprietary Software real soon now. It's a bit irritating.
Remember, Intellectual "Property" is not "Property" at all....
It's attitudes like that that will keep Free Software a footnote in the history of computing.
Stick around the Linux world long enough, and you realize that hatred/fear of Microsoft and Windows is what drives Open Source - NOT the desire to Make The World A Better Place, or to Set The Desktop Free. Do you honestly believe that programmers (like myself) and the software industry at large are going to forge a Brave New World in which software creation is a strictly pro gratis endeavor?
If that's the case, maybe it's time for me to find a new line of work, no?
>Oh well. RMS continues to live in his little fantasy world, while the real world shrugs its collective shoulders...
Now youve just hit one of my biggest peeves. What the fuck are you talking about?
Fantasy belief number one: People would love using command-line, UNIX-like environments if they didn't constantly have Microsoft shoving GUIs down their throat.
Fantasy belief number two: Users prefer technical superiority over usability.
Fantasy belief number three: Slap a buggy, bloated GUI desktop on top of UNIX, and end users will flock to it in droves.
Fantasy belief number four: users will struggle through hours upon hours of painful software configuration in order to thwart the Evil Software Empire.
Fantasy belief number five: Developers will give away their time and expertise to develop free software, solely to Make The World A Better Place.
Fantasy belief number six: Ug. Me Stallman. Proprietary Bad. Ug. Open Good!
...to be able to browse local broadcast TV from every market in the country? I could catch up on news of my favorite sports teams: the Redskins... the Spurs... the Cubs (well, ok, there's WGN for that)... the Capitals...
It's fun to compare local newsreaders from different markets, as well as find out what's happening in Cincinatti or Billings. But, then, I'm an information junkie.
Of course, the big losers will be the TV sports packages where you can watch any game going on in the country, because that would now be possible without paying anything extra.
Did RMS just give them a list of questions he wanted to answer, so he can easily voice his dogma? What about the glaringly obvious question:
"If software can be freely distributed, how can developers be assured of making money from their software?"
Also, RMS's assertion that "inertia" is the reason everyone isn't using free software ignores the fact that the bulk of free systems and software packages have lousy usability. But it goes unchallanged in the interview.
Oh well. RMS continues to live in his little fantasy world, while the real world shrugs its collective shoulders and ignores the true benefits of free software.
What if, besides a Web client, there could be a distributed CPU/storage client as well? So, if you are working on a project via the web, the central server could also farm out threads for you to process, and chunks of file system to distribute to other clients when requested?
Why do I get the feeling that this line of thought ends with "your distinctiveness will be added to our own"?
I think that crappy food and the like probably go with the territory when it comes to space. The astronauts are in it for the glory, honor, and adventure. I think they can tolerate eating veggies for a few years.
The key issue is getting enough complete protein, but soy pretty much solves that problem.
Personally, I love my meat, have no problem raising and killing animals for food, and understand that the entire population of the word can live comfortably in the state of Texas. But that's not the issue. The issue is how to get the astronauts the nutrition they need in an economical way.
Slashdot Mirror
Software doesn't evolve by chance, folks, it is DESIGNED by its CREATORS.
/. is a site for SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION.
Please check your crackpot theories and psuedo-science at the door.
Thank you.
For straight-up hardware news, tomshardware.com's news section (http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/index.html) is a good place to start.
Perhaps a farmer picking apart a haystack, one piece at a time.
As far as why it would have to be a "white or asian male," I think the original AC for some reason assumes that either only white or asian males are rich enough, or that only white or asian males would want to be cloned.
ACs. What can you do about it?
Can someone clarify what the reasoning for this is?
Yes. Why pay mucho $$$ for an expensive and risky cloning procedure to produce an "offspring" that isn't genetically related, when cheaper, safer, more conventional methods exist (like donor egg/sperm, or the cheapest and safest: adoption) that produce the exact same result?
1.3 So what's the problem?
The problem is that copyright protections have become too strong. For the past 200 years, legislation and court decisions preserved a careful balance between the need to protect the rights of creators and the need to protect the rights of citizens. Sometimes those rights come into conflict, for example when a reviewer wants to quote a passage from a novel or when a TV fan wants to record a show in order to watch it later. In the case of such conflicts, citizens were often given reasonable flexibility to use legally purchased content in a convenient manner.
However, that balance has been dramatically shifted by recent copyright laws. Today, citizens have practically no legal rights to use content that they own. We simply want to restore the fair and reasonable balance that served us for two centuries.
But isn't there a fundamental difference in today's technology and so-called "fair use?" If a reviewer quotes part of a book, only a small portion of that book is duplicated and make freely available. If a home viewer tapes a show on a VCR, the most he can do is run a few copies off for friends. But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders? How do you propose we stem illegal distribution of copyrighted material, other than mandating that copy-thwarting be built into any device that can read the original work?
I should amend it to read "flawless when played on a crappy analog TV set." You really can't tell much of a difference between a decent VCD encoding and an SVCD encoding of the same analog TV show played on the same analog TV set, through the same garden variety DVD player.
I must agree, FastTrack has much excellentness. I've used it (Morpheus, then Kazaa) to grab all of the Enterprise episodes in flawless VCD format.
Which do you think will come first, a widely-used open hack of FastTrack, or Gnutella being improved to the point where it's just as useful and easy?
If there are many many many people who could serve some function, any function, then we, as the human population benefit: we possess an unlimited and inexhaustible amount of Human Resource. The "employers", therefore, are merely facilitators that make use of this resource.
But spare me the ego and bravado you are encouraged to have. Non-Americans can tell by observation and casual contact that Americans are recipients of copious amounts of propaganda which fosters this illusion of personal power.
I don't understand this conception that there is an adversarial relationship between the employer and the employed. There isn't, anymore than there is an adversarial relationship between a field of corn and the farmer who farms it. Business, corporations, capitalism in general -- when it is properly adjusted and regulated -- is nothing more than a means of extracting a raw resource, i.e., human capacity, and using it to generate finished wealth.
Why do people talk about "those who code for the Software Industry(TM)" and "those who code open source for kicks" as if they are two different and separate groups of people? I don't have any numbers, but I would be willing to bet that there is more than a little bit of overlap here.
Why do people talk about commercial software and IP as if it's somehow -damaging- to free software? If anything, it's a boon to Free Software, because it gives the Free Software developers a day job!
But here's the thing: Proprietary software is always going to have a leg up in the marketplace over free software, because proprietary software is designed from the ground up to appeal to users in the target market. Linux fans may complain about the UI fluff in Windows, but that fluff is there because people like it. People who code for kicks aren't interested in fluff; they're interested in making cool applications and systems. But "coolness" isn't necessarily what sells. See what I'm getting at?
My, you are paranoid. Anyhoo, the fact of the matter is that ordinary folks are not flocking to Linux in droves. There is a reason for that, and it's not because Microsoft is forcing Windows into their hands at gunpoint.
I would actually like to separate these out and say a bit about each of them:
Microsoft-The-Monopolists: I'll be the first to say that I can't stand the way Microsoft has handled their Windows monopoly. But the MS monopoly has not cost the public or hurt consumers at large in any real way. It's hurt the software business tremendously, but the end user gets the sweet end of the deal: cheap computers loaded with tons of useful software out of the box. Millions of people using the same software, being able to share information quickly and easily. Yes, AND the odd BSOD, but the benefits to the consumer have been overwhelmingly positive.
The Anti-Piracy-Police-Extortion-Cartel: No one is forcing anyone to buy software with draconian EULAs. It's not like free alternatives don't exist. No one is forced to pirate software. Don't like the EULA? Don't buy the software. Don't like the enforcement methods? Don't pirate software.
Disney's Infinite Copyright: This is a question of degree with regards to Intellectual Property. I certainly don't agree that IP is a God-given right from birth, or that IP should be perpetual and immutable. To say that infinite copyright is stupid is not the same thing as saying IP should be banished. But all that aside, does it really matter who is and isn't allowed to draw Mickey Mouse?
DMCA and the SSSCA/CBDTPA: This isn't an IP issue at all. This is about the freedom to do what we want with our own property, in our own homes. I am completely against the DCMA and CBDTPA, but not because I don't think the movie studios don't have the right to protect their own lousy movie from being copied. Just because the studios can't figure out how to keep their DVDs from being Napsterized, does not give them the right to come into my home and tell me what software I can and cannot run, and what my hardware is and isn't allowed to do.
I think most folks against the CBDTPA right now agree that violating copyright is bad. Copyright and IP isn't the issue.
Too bad Kohler came along and ripped off the original designer's method. The inventer, in fact, makes nothing, gives up on inventing better toilets, and becomes a plumber for a living. The world is deprived of yet another great toilet designer, because there is no Intellectual Property.
And, what prevents your employer from sticking a piece of GPL software in a box and selling it?
Among other things, CD burners and rival software companies.
Mheh. Not all unix programmers (after all, I am one). Just RMS. :-)
If toilet designers invent a method for creating a toilet that uses 50% less water when flushed, and never back up, should they not be allowed to market and profit from this method?
When your employer sells a license - do you get a royalty? You are paid for the time you write code -- as am I -- why do you expect to be paid again, and again, and again - see the plumber point again please. Further, think about "Intellectual Property" (which is borne by a moment and act (like anything else)) vs "Property".
I make a contractual agreement with my employer: what I invent is sold to them, and becomes their property. It's called terms of employment. What they do with their own property (e.g., put it in shrink-wrapped boxes and sell it) is up to them. I don't expect to be paid again and again, because I've agreed to sell the rights to another party. If I don't like the arrangement, I can go work somewhere else, or become a plumber.
The battle would be more easily won by the green beans if the green beans weren't on a shelf ten feet high, in a can made from half-inch-thick tin. Anyway, a better analogy would be this: most Open Source software is like a car that gets 60 mpg, and has built-in collision avoidance to keep you out of accidents, but also has the look of a '92 Yugo, and places the stick-shift behind the front passenger seat.
>Fantasy belief number four: users will struggle through hours upon hours of painful software configuration in order to thwart the Evil Software Empire.
Who is struggling? GNU/Linux gets "easier" by the day, its not "MS Easy" vs "GNU/Linux Hard" its "Familiar" vs "unFamiliar".
Since I've started using Linux in early 1998, I've seen it get easier in small, incremental steps. Software installation and configuration, and most user tasks beyond things like web browsing are a major chore. Typical Linux zealots balk at this notion with one of the following:
1. "No it's not!" Ok, put a third-party software CD in the drive, select "install", have the software install with minimal user intervention, and place shortcuts automatically in the root menu. What, "tar xfvz;./configure;make;make install"? Why?
2. "It's good that it's hard, because it teaches you how to use your computer properly." No, it teaches you how to use UNIX. Most people aren't interested in using UNIX. They're interested in using their computers.
3. "Click and drool interfaces are inferior to the command line. So what if the GUI is clunky, you shouldn't be using it in the first place."
The fundamental thing to remember is that "easy to use" for developers and gurus, and "easy to use" for end users are two very different things.
I'm bent about the whole Linux situation. Making Linux as smooth and easy as a Windows or Mac interface is Not a hard thing to do. Yet, year after year, the developers consistently refuse/fail to do this. Rather than make things easier, they make things needlessly complicated, to the point at which a modern Linux GUI won't run on a Pentium 200 with 32 MB of RAM without bringing the entire system to a grinding halt!
Then, RMS gets in front of everyone and moralizes endlessly about how wonderful Free Software is, and how it's going to take the place of Evil, Bad, Buggy Proprietary Software real soon now. It's a bit irritating.
It's attitudes like that that will keep Free Software a footnote in the history of computing.
Stick around the Linux world long enough, and you realize that hatred/fear of Microsoft and Windows is what drives Open Source - NOT the desire to Make The World A Better Place, or to Set The Desktop Free. Do you honestly believe that programmers (like myself) and the software industry at large are going to forge a Brave New World in which software creation is a strictly pro gratis endeavor?
If that's the case, maybe it's time for me to find a new line of work, no?
Now youve just hit one of my biggest peeves. What the fuck are you talking about?
Fantasy belief number one: People would love using command-line, UNIX-like environments if they didn't constantly have Microsoft shoving GUIs down their throat.
Fantasy belief number two: Users prefer technical superiority over usability.
Fantasy belief number three: Slap a buggy, bloated GUI desktop on top of UNIX, and end users will flock to it in droves.
Fantasy belief number four: users will struggle through hours upon hours of painful software configuration in order to thwart the Evil Software Empire.
Fantasy belief number five: Developers will give away their time and expertise to develop free software, solely to Make The World A Better Place.
Fantasy belief number six: Ug. Me Stallman. Proprietary Bad. Ug. Open Good!
I could go on for days.....
...to be able to browse local broadcast TV from every market in the country? I could catch up on news of my favorite sports teams: the Redskins... the Spurs... the Cubs (well, ok, there's WGN for that)... the Capitals...
It's fun to compare local newsreaders from different markets, as well as find out what's happening in Cincinatti or Billings. But, then, I'm an information junkie.
Of course, the big losers will be the TV sports packages where you can watch any game going on in the country, because that would now be possible without paying anything extra.
Did RMS just give them a list of questions he wanted to answer, so he can easily voice his dogma? What about the glaringly obvious question:
"If software can be freely distributed, how can developers be assured of making money from their software?"
Also, RMS's assertion that "inertia" is the reason everyone isn't using free software ignores the fact that the bulk of free systems and software packages have lousy usability. But it goes unchallanged in the interview.
Oh well. RMS continues to live in his little fantasy world, while the real world shrugs its collective shoulders and ignores the true benefits of free software.
I think the halflings' weed has clouded your mind.
What about Q? Where does Q fit in with all of this? And, for that matter, what is Guynan doing right now, besides wearing Hobbit feet at the Oscars?
Oh, right, something sensible, then.
What if, besides a Web client, there could be a distributed CPU/storage client as well? So, if you are working on a project via the web, the central server could also farm out threads for you to process, and chunks of file system to distribute to other clients when requested?
Why do I get the feeling that this line of thought ends with "your distinctiveness will be added to our own"?
I think that crappy food and the like probably go with the territory when it comes to space. The astronauts are in it for the glory, honor, and adventure. I think they can tolerate eating veggies for a few years.
The key issue is getting enough complete protein, but soy pretty much solves that problem.
Personally, I love my meat, have no problem raising and killing animals for food, and understand that the entire population of the word can live comfortably in the state of Texas. But that's not the issue. The issue is how to get the astronauts the nutrition they need in an economical way.