The term "light pollution" just reeks of Luddite bias. Why on earth is it pollution? Is everything man-made now considered pollution? Are we going to start calling cities "countryside pollution" and printing presses "litter makers?"
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be in the dark. Scientists, of all people, should know that. There is nothing literally harmful about the light in cities, only benefit. Pollution is not a matter of opinion; a pollutant is something that can cause a vital substance (such as water) to be unhealthful to life.
The only "light pollution" I see, the stuff that is truly harmful, comes from the power plants that run the lights. Everyone I know calls that industrial pollution, and that's the only applicable extent to which the term applies. No one is talking about the carbon footprint when they casually mention "light pollution." They're talking about their distaste for urban centers.
So call it "spectral range compression" if you want to draw a bad analogy. Call it "urban sky syndrome," even. But for the love of God don't go diluting the critical cause of preventing the pollution of vital resources, because city lights don't correspond to your stargazing schedule, and you wanted to score some political points.
(*gets down from preachy soapbox and ceases "Slashdot pollution"*)
Because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the "cyberworld" literally can't impinge upon "real life."
There is a time-tested firewall (of lack of imagination) between the two. For instance: This message I've posted cannot affect "real life" in any way, shape, or form.;^)
That must be why I put in the "[of IP Law]" edit right there in the quote to clearly define the fact that he was talking about all IP law. What a word twister I am. Paranoid much?
Okay, I'll try to explain this calmly, and maybe you'll come away understanding the law better.
I did not misunderstand his argument. The whole article is (partially) rooted in a faulty premise that he clearly swallowed without documentation or evidence. If he had talked to anyone familiar with any IP law about it, he wouldn't have missed it. What he unambiguously stated, IP law tries to create physical property remedies and rights for ideas, is a common lay misunderstanding of what "Intellectual Property" means. At least he understands that infringement and larceny are handled completely differently in the law, but the article has a weak rhetorical foundation because that clarity is contradicted by his prior assertions.
In U.S. History, the first IP law was enumerated in the Constitution. The reason I use that to illustrate my point is twofold, 1) common law is based in precedent, and 2) any discussion of "software piracy" is by definition a discussion of copyright. My comment stands: He's accepted the foremost lie about copyright and IP, that "Intellectual Property" refers to actual property, rather than being a poorly worded phrase for a set of laws whose primary purpose is to create a safe haven for innovation and rights to control and benefit from the fruits of one's own innovation.
I really wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it if he hadn't spent the first page and a half making repeated assurances that he had gone to great lengths to bring facts and not anecdotal evidence.
If you feel the need to argue that you are competent to shed light on a subject as an introduction to an essay, then it's very likely you aren't. QED.
Here's a sound tip for yourself and the article writer, if you are indeed different people: write what you know. This basic premise was utterly wrong re the facts of the law, and the explicitly stated intents of the people who wrote the law. The point of patent, trademark, and copyright is not to create "imaginary property." "Intellectual Property" is a lousy, oft-misunderstood term, but we're stuck with it.
The aim [of IP law] is to provide intellectual property a similar type of protection as that afforded to physical property.
This would be nice if it were true in the slightest. The stated aim of copyright in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
...and the term "Intellectual Property" didn't exist in the 18th C, sparky. Wiki says 1967 was when it was first coined.
Seriously, this guy spent paragraphs assuring us that he spent time, researched, and can back up what he says with more than just hearsay, and then provides the most commonly regurgitated piece of hearsay, the granddaddy of all industry lies regarding copyright, shortly thereafter.
He's got delusions of competency on the subject matter, on his research skills, and on his writing ability. FAIL.
P.S.: WTF is the "Linux Movement?" Does he mean the FOSS movement? Do we need to change GNU to GNLED? (Gnu's NOT Linux Either, Dumbass) Could we read the f-ing article before posting a bunch of incompetently written, factually inaccurate crap as "News for Nerds?"
How is maintaining the rate of increase in the number of transistors that can be economically placed on an integrated circuit a software problem?
Utilising them efficiently is the software problem. Otherwise, the doubling rate becomes rapidly pointless. About twice as pointless every two years, according to the popular theory.
What I am hearing, from the mouths of the noble chipmakers, is fear of obsolescence. They're claiming that they should be allowed to continue to make chips almost exactly as they have for the past two decades, and turn a profit from it, without really innovating. It is somebody else's problem to find a way to make their silicon wafers useful, valuable, and by extension, profitable.
They might do better to paint their new sixteen to sixty-four core processors pink and erect an SEP field. Then maybe nobody will notice that they're "mostly useless."
Consider this: Nobody owns the alphabet any more. There is no value in creating a custom set of letters, because we have a set that works. If you want to consider building the foundation of a more modern, productive society a 'race to zero' so be it, but there's no reason anyone should make money from it once the methods and algorithms are settled.
The things we can do with those letters is greater than their sum. We created the alphabet so we could move on to bigger and better things, built from it.
'Custom' is just another word for 'original,' and only original works have value in the 'Information Society.' 'Custom' software is not the only way to be original, however. You can add value to standard tools in quality as well, as in the proverbial 'better mousetrap.'
The truth is, however, that eventually nobody wants or needs a better mousetrap. That's commodity software. Good enough is good enough, and so it goes with the software industry.
There was a great deal of concern that, being Catholic, JFK might take his orders from the Pope, instead of enforcing the Constitution. Until he was elected, it was widely believed that only a Protestant could be elected President.
It all turned out to be bunk. Kennedy's religion did not dictate his policies, and neither will Barack Obama's.
The rumor of 'secret Muslim' is untrue, but more importantly, it's already been proven that his religion is irrelevant. Only his ability to "uphold the Constitution" and do what is best for America is important.
Those who religion is the relevant criterion seek to undermine the Constitution of this country.
Ubuntu is designed with the novice user in mind. It's supposed to "just work."
It's based on Debian, and for a user who's interested in the "UNIX ideology," whatever that is, Debian is your distro. Everything is optional, and *you* make it work.
Ubuntu is doing wonders for Linux desktop usability, unfortunately, usability always means bloat.
This in from the future of an alternate timeline: The standard protocol for terraforming experiments such as these is to always have a backup planet, with complete infrastructure in place, in case something goes wrong.
I don't think we're going to meet that requirement for many decades to come. Experimenting with global systems is ill advised at best until we have somewhere else to go in the event of a failure.
It all comes down to whether you believe a doctor should be a professional, based in authority and precedents, like a lawyer, or a scientist, based in inquiry, skepticism, and exploration.
I'd prefer my general practitioner to be a scientist, but my specialists to be professionals.
Many doctors I know behave as professionals. They aren't interested in exploration. For such doctors, there is no need for organic chemistry. For specialists, there's so much accepted information to absorb that open inquiry is often out of the question. This changes for frontier fields like neurology, however.
It's certainly easier to train someone in precedent and authority, however, and no easier to pass such courses as a student. Leaving out organic chem would be a convenience to the professional trainers, not to the student.
It's really a question of style, more than substance. Both approaches are substantial.
Just as the McCain campaign was dead wrong trying to characterize Obama as a pervert (over Kindergarten child rape prevention clases) and calling Sarah Palin a "pig," when his old press secretarywrote a book about it as a metaphor for spin, and McCain himself used the metaphor himself to describe Hillarycare II.
So basically, the McCain campaign is "plain wrong," and so is this nutcase fringe group that broke into Palin's mails. Glad we're clear on that.
Hopefully, all concerned parties will stop being "plain wrong" and go back to being "right," possibly with a little help from the appropriate country's corrections system, in the latter case.
Hang on. Why tag this "semantics?" You taggers realize that GPL stands for "General Public License." Right?
All software, except public domain software (AFAIK), is distributed under some sort of license. It isn't a semantic issue at all. People here are holding Mozilla to a "no license" standard that simply doesn't exist.
Is all this flak simply because Mozilla finds the GPL too generic and inadequate to protect their trademark and liability concerns? Then use Iceweasel or the abrowser branding. Problem solved.
This is a truly trivial matter for such an uproar, and if Mozilla is going to build a brand that competes with IE 8, they need to defend and maintain that brand. You can't play by a different set of rules than the rest of the business world and survive. You play by the rules of engagement, and the laws, of the countries your operate in, or you get steamrolled.
This is not "semantics." This is trademark law, and MS lawyers don't take prisoners.
Seriously, it's like they've got a strategy to bleed out their legendary capital reserves on stupid crap, so when the inevitable legal settlements against them start rolling in, there won't be anything left for their opponents to recover.
This doesn't sound like sound marketing or PR; it's more like a fire sale.
If I was still a shareholder, I'd be pissed. This kind of gratuitous, overpriced PR nonsense does not increase shareholder value. Ballmer's wasting money that *you* have a stake in. He's wasting your money.
Please do something about him before your share value plummets. I really think he's lost it.
On a side note, I bet support calls to display device makers go up as an unintended consequence. Yes, I know the icons will still be there, but you cannot overestimate the power of PEBKAC.
What's it gonna take to get new management at MS? How big does the disaster have to be? Never mind the ethics, it would be nice to have someone who is worthy of the 90%+ market share shrewdly won with clever marketing and cutthroat keen business senses, if not quality.
So much of computing, as it exists now, depends on Microsoft. This sad joke must end. Satisfactory management would be a step up. Right now, the only thing they're "F-ing burying" is themselves.
Anyone with common sense doesn't want to see MS just implode like this.
The Mayans already predicted the world will end sometime in 2012, so this can't be the big one.;^)
Besides, a full-on stable black hole could at worse cause us all to start rushing at an infinite pace towards infinite density. The world will simply get slower and thicker, all at once. That's no change at all in my book.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a moron, you're not really a hippie. You're just a moron who acts like a hippie.
You should know that! I'm starting to wonder if you should turn in your Hippie card and "tea set." ;^)
The term "light pollution" just reeks of Luddite bias. Why on earth is it pollution? Is everything man-made now considered pollution? Are we going to start calling cities "countryside pollution" and printing presses "litter makers?"
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be in the dark. Scientists, of all people, should know that. There is nothing literally harmful about the light in cities, only benefit. Pollution is not a matter of opinion; a pollutant is something that can cause a vital substance (such as water) to be unhealthful to life.
The only "light pollution" I see, the stuff that is truly harmful, comes from the power plants that run the lights. Everyone I know calls that industrial pollution, and that's the only applicable extent to which the term applies. No one is talking about the carbon footprint when they casually mention "light pollution." They're talking about their distaste for urban centers.
So call it "spectral range compression" if you want to draw a bad analogy. Call it "urban sky syndrome," even. But for the love of God don't go diluting the critical cause of preventing the pollution of vital resources, because city lights don't correspond to your stargazing schedule, and you wanted to score some political points.
(*gets down from preachy soapbox and ceases "Slashdot pollution"*)
--
Toro
Because it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the "cyberworld" literally can't impinge upon "real life."
There is a time-tested firewall (of lack of imagination) between the two. For instance: This message I've posted cannot affect "real life" in any way, shape, or form. ;^)
--
Toro
That must be why I put in the "[of IP Law]" edit right there in the quote to clearly define the fact that he was talking about all IP law. What a word twister I am. Paranoid much?
Okay, I'll try to explain this calmly, and maybe you'll come away understanding the law better.
I did not misunderstand his argument. The whole article is (partially) rooted in a faulty premise that he clearly swallowed without documentation or evidence. If he had talked to anyone familiar with any IP law about it, he wouldn't have missed it. What he unambiguously stated, IP law tries to create physical property remedies and rights for ideas, is a common lay misunderstanding of what "Intellectual Property" means. At least he understands that infringement and larceny are handled completely differently in the law, but the article has a weak rhetorical foundation because that clarity is contradicted by his prior assertions.
In U.S. History, the first IP law was enumerated in the Constitution. The reason I use that to illustrate my point is twofold, 1) common law is based in precedent, and 2) any discussion of "software piracy" is by definition a discussion of copyright. My comment stands: He's accepted the foremost lie about copyright and IP, that "Intellectual Property" refers to actual property, rather than being a poorly worded phrase for a set of laws whose primary purpose is to create a safe haven for innovation and rights to control and benefit from the fruits of one's own innovation.
I really wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it if he hadn't spent the first page and a half making repeated assurances that he had gone to great lengths to bring facts and not anecdotal evidence.
If you feel the need to argue that you are competent to shed light on a subject as an introduction to an essay, then it's very likely you aren't. QED.
Here's a sound tip for yourself and the article writer, if you are indeed different people: write what you know. This basic premise was utterly wrong re the facts of the law, and the explicitly stated intents of the people who wrote the law. The point of patent, trademark, and copyright is not to create "imaginary property." "Intellectual Property" is a lousy, oft-misunderstood term, but we're stuck with it.
--
Toro
From TFA:
The aim [of IP law] is to provide intellectual property a similar type of protection as that afforded to physical property.
This would be nice if it were true in the slightest. The stated aim of copyright in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
...and the term "Intellectual Property" didn't exist in the 18th C, sparky. Wiki says 1967 was when it was first coined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Seriously, this guy spent paragraphs assuring us that he spent time, researched, and can back up what he says with more than just hearsay, and then provides the most commonly regurgitated piece of hearsay, the granddaddy of all industry lies regarding copyright, shortly thereafter.
He's got delusions of competency on the subject matter, on his research skills, and on his writing ability. FAIL.
P.S.: WTF is the "Linux Movement?" Does he mean the FOSS movement? Do we need to change GNU to GNLED? (Gnu's NOT Linux Either, Dumbass)
Could we read the f-ing article before posting a bunch of incompetently written, factually inaccurate crap as "News for Nerds?"
--
Toro
How in the Sam-hell did y'all manage to scoop NewYorkCountryLawyer on this?!
Way to go. ;^)
--
Toro
How is maintaining the rate of increase in the number of transistors that can be economically placed on an integrated circuit a software problem?
Utilising them efficiently is the software problem. Otherwise, the doubling rate becomes rapidly pointless. About twice as pointless every two years, according to the popular theory.
What I am hearing, from the mouths of the noble chipmakers, is fear of obsolescence. They're claiming that they should be allowed to continue to make chips almost exactly as they have for the past two decades, and turn a profit from it, without really innovating. It is somebody else's problem to find a way to make their silicon wafers useful, valuable, and by extension, profitable.
They might do better to paint their new sixteen to sixty-four core processors pink and erect an SEP field. Then maybe nobody will notice that they're "mostly useless."
--
Toro
Consider this: Nobody owns the alphabet any more. There is no value in creating a custom set of letters, because we have a set that works. If you want to consider building the foundation of a more modern, productive society a 'race to zero' so be it, but there's no reason anyone should make money from it once the methods and algorithms are settled.
The things we can do with those letters is greater than their sum. We created the alphabet so we could move on to bigger and better things, built from it.
'Custom' is just another word for 'original,' and only original works have value in the 'Information Society.' 'Custom' software is not the only way to be original, however. You can add value to standard tools in quality as well, as in the proverbial 'better mousetrap.'
The truth is, however, that eventually nobody wants or needs a better mousetrap. That's commodity software. Good enough is good enough, and so it goes with the software industry.
--
Toro
So basically, what I'm seeing here is that MTV canceled TRL, to replace it with Paramount's new project TRL: The Next Generation.
I think Viacom's got s^Ha hit on their hands.
-- ;^)
Toro
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
Sorry, couldn't resist.
--
Toro
There was a great deal of concern that, being Catholic, JFK might take his orders from the Pope, instead of enforcing the Constitution. Until he was elected, it was widely believed that only a Protestant could be elected President.
It all turned out to be bunk. Kennedy's religion did not dictate his policies, and neither will Barack Obama's.
The rumor of 'secret Muslim' is untrue, but more importantly, it's already been proven that his religion is irrelevant. Only his ability to "uphold the Constitution" and do what is best for America is important.
Those who religion is the relevant criterion seek to undermine the Constitution of this country.
Just read what Mike Hucakbee has to say about it:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx
Seriously, our Constitution avoids the mention of God for a freaking reason. The founders had a big problem with the head of the Church of England.
--
Toro
Ubuntu is designed with the novice user in mind. It's supposed to "just work."
It's based on Debian, and for a user who's interested in the "UNIX ideology," whatever that is, Debian is your distro. Everything is optional, and *you* make it work.
Ubuntu is doing wonders for Linux desktop usability, unfortunately, usability always means bloat.
--
Toro
This in from the future of an alternate timeline: The standard protocol for terraforming experiments such as these is to always have a backup planet, with complete infrastructure in place, in case something goes wrong.
I don't think we're going to meet that requirement for many decades to come. Experimenting with global systems is ill advised at best until we have somewhere else to go in the event of a failure.
--
Toro
Looks like the cast of Beverly Hills 1701. ;^)
--
Toro
It all comes down to whether you believe a doctor should be a professional, based in authority and precedents, like a lawyer, or a scientist, based in inquiry, skepticism, and exploration.
I'd prefer my general practitioner to be a scientist, but my specialists to be professionals.
Many doctors I know behave as professionals. They aren't interested in exploration. For such doctors, there is no need for organic chemistry. For specialists, there's so much accepted information to absorb that open inquiry is often out of the question. This changes for frontier fields like neurology, however.
It's certainly easier to train someone in precedent and authority, however, and no easier to pass such courses as a student. Leaving out organic chem would be a convenience to the professional trainers, not to the student.
It's really a question of style, more than substance. Both approaches are substantial.
--
Toro
Defamation of character and slander is as serious a crime. If you can't see that, you're just a McCain apologist.
Yup. I agree.
Just as the McCain campaign was dead wrong trying to characterize Obama as a pervert (over Kindergarten child rape prevention clases) and calling Sarah Palin a "pig," when his old press secretary wrote a book about it as a metaphor for spin, and McCain himself used the metaphor himself to describe Hillarycare II.
So basically, the McCain campaign is "plain wrong," and so is this nutcase fringe group that broke into Palin's mails. Glad we're clear on that.
Hopefully, all concerned parties will stop being "plain wrong" and go back to being "right," possibly with a little help from the appropriate country's corrections system, in the latter case.
--
Toro
Hang on. Why tag this "semantics?" You taggers realize that GPL stands for "General Public License." Right?
All software, except public domain software (AFAIK), is distributed under some sort of license. It isn't a semantic issue at all. People here are holding Mozilla to a "no license" standard that simply doesn't exist.
Is all this flak simply because Mozilla finds the GPL too generic and inadequate to protect their trademark and liability concerns? Then use Iceweasel or the abrowser branding. Problem solved.
This is a truly trivial matter for such an uproar, and if Mozilla is going to build a brand that competes with IE 8, they need to defend and maintain that brand. You can't play by a different set of rules than the rest of the business world and survive. You play by the rules of engagement, and the laws, of the countries your operate in, or you get steamrolled.
This is not "semantics." This is trademark law, and MS lawyers don't take prisoners.
--
Toro
"ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."
Oh wait. Already in the summary. No need to tag it. No need to even read TFA.
Well done, sir. I'm impressed. ;^)
--
Toro
Seriously, it's like they've got a strategy to bleed out their legendary capital reserves on stupid crap, so when the inevitable legal settlements against them start rolling in, there won't be anything left for their opponents to recover.
This doesn't sound like sound marketing or PR; it's more like a fire sale.
If I was still a shareholder, I'd be pissed. This kind of gratuitous, overpriced PR nonsense does not increase shareholder value. Ballmer's wasting money that *you* have a stake in. He's wasting your money.
Please do something about him before your share value plummets. I really think he's lost it.
--
Toro
I had no idea the ISO posted to Slashdot.
I guess your standards really have gone to pot! ;^)
--
Toro
So I guess Elizabeth Dole said no. After all, she couldn't possibly have been behind Gov. Palin on the short list, could she?
I think he's lost his mind. This is like Harriet Miers all over again.
--
Toro
BSOPRD
Black Screen of Public Relations Disaster.
On a side note, I bet support calls to display device makers go up as an unintended consequence. Yes, I know the icons will still be there, but you cannot overestimate the power of PEBKAC.
What's it gonna take to get new management at MS? How big does the disaster have to be? Never mind the ethics, it would be nice to have someone who is worthy of the 90%+ market share shrewdly won with clever marketing and cutthroat keen business senses, if not quality.
So much of computing, as it exists now, depends on Microsoft. This sad joke must end. Satisfactory management would be a step up. Right now, the only thing they're "F-ing burying" is themselves.
Anyone with common sense doesn't want to see MS just implode like this.
--
Toro
So I take it this means McCain won't be taking Ohio this year? ;^P
--
Toro
The Mayans already predicted the world will end sometime in 2012, so this can't be the big one. ;^)
Besides, a full-on stable black hole could at worse cause us all to start rushing at an infinite pace towards infinite density. The world will simply get slower and thicker, all at once. That's no change at all in my book.
--
Toro