Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, it is a little more complicated to get a large rocket make it into space than just scaling up an Estes Big Bertha by strapping 3 D engines on it.
He is neither. He is an astute, open minded thinker that CAN see the forest for the trees. By being forced to give out the source AND allow anyone that receives the source to distribute it any way they want. You absolutely "effectively" give away the code for free.
And BSD truly is free in comparison. You are FREE to create both Open and Closed source from BSD code. That is freedom.
You seem to indicate that either or possibly both of these are false. Care to explain which, and how, rather than postulating on a person's motives?
Well considering that giving anyone your passphrase so they could decrypt something incriminating is itself an incriminating act, AND that that is not considered protected by the 5th, I doubt any fancier philosophies will hold up in court.
Doesn't faster and faster processors coupled with better and better compilers free the engineer from the drudgery and time sink of squeezing every last cpu cycle out of their button pressing code and leave them with more time to look at engineering better solutions to more complex issues?
Having lived through the last 15 years of processor/compiler advancement I can attest that the answer is a sreaming "YES"!
That's not to say that you shouldn't TOTALLY ignore the speed/bloat issue, but these days, REASONABLE attention to these things in the high level language is plenty for all but the few truly demanding tasks such as streaming data compression/encryption/transformation. And even then we may pass a poitn in time where that is even necessary. We've pretty much passed it with audio. Video is still a ways off. Real time 3d rendering with 5 mile horizons and 10 billion spline models with realistic lighting and physics on a $500 PC is still decades off (Just look at the latest computer game, then go outside and look at the forest or canyon and compare the two).
It will not happen any time soon. Unless the entire human population geneticly changes to some other kind of animal that actually sits back and says. "Nah, that's enough, don't need to pursue anything more... ever." or AI actually becomes a reality.
Humans have always and will always be looking for the next thing in the unknown. As soon as engineers are freed of the deugery of re-doing what has been done before counteless times, they will move on to new things. Let the computer do the drudgery of wing design or component layout. We'll just get more interesting work done!
Single click open is not a good idea because it removes or makes much harder the ability to SELECT the item WITHOUT launching it. Something possibly done much more often than launching.
One click -> Select Double-click -> Select and Launch
It's a good system. Single-click launch systems are more dangerous and more error prone. You should only Launch when your REALLY mean it. There's nothing worse than launching a hundred kwords. Or even one when all you REALLY wanted was to select a file for a cut and paste operation.
Intel's maybe? GNUs iron grip on Linux is fading. Personally, I say the faster the better. Maybe he finally realized it and this is a last ditch panic before he loses all control. A death rattle if you will.
I'm going to refer to "it" as "LiGNUx" from now on! Besides being the hardest to say, it's also all ha>or like! It's got that magical 1337 mystique about it!
"Bad reaction" indeed. I can't believe any sane person would have even suggested that name.
Hee Hee Hee It'll be hours before I stop giggling about "LiGNUx".
Yes, but modding a game is far simpler and yeilds results far superior than writing a game from scratch. It allows people to do much much more than they ever could in the past. That's his point.
The pros do more, the amatures do more, the users get more. It's good all around.
I'll tell you what's dead. Arcades. Brand new games look exactly the same as they did 15 years ago when they stopped development on the hardware and the gaming concepts. DDR is the single exception to that rule in the last decade. If you want to talk about something dying, talk about something that is REALLY dying!
Uh, that's because the I-Opener sucked and no one signed up for service. They weren't in the buisness to make $200 consoles and sell them to Linux hackers for $99 you know. YOU KNOW?
Er, what is there to "take back". There are amateurs and there are professionals and there always has been.
The amateurs are now and have always been unknown by more than a very local following/because/ they are not involved in the pro music buisness. The pro music buisness evolved to create something that didn't even exist before. Wide-spread recognition for artists.
They really are two different things. The amateurs will never take over the pros. But they will never go away either. All it takes is the tiniest bit of effort on the "user" to look for them. But that really is the main problem. 99.9% of the people don't want to "work" for it.
What you are really calling for is the complete distruction of the pro music buisness. Then people will become so desperate that they will then have to put in that tiny bit of effort to find entertainment for themselves. Actually go out and listed to local music! This of course is just utopianizing.
Instead, just be true to yourself. Do the work yourself, find good indie bands or deal with small lablems like www.indistrialmusic.com. (There, I did my litle bit of evangelizing for today! Now imagine if everyone did that instead of just complaining all the time about how evil everything is?)
But also remember that musicians need to eat to, so even if it's indy music, please don't ask us to just give everything away for free. Please SUPPORT us by buying our music on-line and off.
That's hardly "realistic" though now is it? The idea that genetic mucking-about can create a new sense that is not based on science in any way? That's pure fantasy.
Both slashdot and the person that posted could be up for legal trouble for copyright infringment.
If that doesn't bother you, then why don't you log on with phoney information and post the article here yourself rather than asking someone else to break the law?
And this is different from restricting my "Use" of the code by distributing it how I like how? Maybe my entire "use" of the code is distributing it. How is restricting distribution any different from restricting the running of it. They are both actions that can be taken with the copyrighted object in question.
Contracts that restrict "use" of an item in any way whatsoever are all the same. The GPL saying I can't redistribute except on their terms is no different that the MS EULA that says the same thing.
Not letting me redistribute GPLed source on my own terms IS ENSLAVING and DEPRIVING me(the user) just as much as any MS EULA does!
Try reading the BSD liscense some time if you want to see an agreement that doesn't enslave the user...
Source is copyrightable and binaries are not? That'll ne news to a world full of developers!
I suppose the original word document for a novel is copyrightable but the mass produced books are not? I don;t think so.
If (C) grants you the right to demand signatureless contracts on all users than surely the code generated from the source does also.
Re:try saying this code isn't free speech
on
Open Source Art?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, but Code is NOT a paintbrush. Code is also NOT art!
C, C++ JAVA, those are the paint brushes. The output of the code is the art.
But what is the code?
It is a tiny manefestation of the artists soul. Between the paint brush and the finished art is a human. The code IS the human in a microscopic captured for. The code is written by a human and the human has imbued the code with a subset of his soul like the human would imbue the brush as he is painting. It's like an artist "Magicly" teaching the brush what to paint, then days later having the brush paint the actual canvas (if that was possible).
The code is something new. It is neither the brush, nor the art. But a tiny displased human soul, ready to render out that tiny portion of the artists whims and desires on demand.
Well in that case I guess there is a human "Spirit" laying down the paint and creating the emotional imagry, whereas the souless "computer" was creating the imagry without there being any emotion behind it.
But of course a human did program the art software, producing imagery within a set of constraints, so the soul has been programmed in. It's probably infinately more "art" than anything painted by an elephant.
Besides all one has to do to see soulless and emotionless painting is to look at any Thomas Kincade work.
It is not possible to "verify" the correct function of any program or hardware beyond the simplest of machines. Punch card ballots come closest to being "verifiable" than anything electronic used for voting. No electronic voting system could ever be proven to be 100% correct O.S. or not.
Though we live with unverified and unverifiable systems all the time, planes, cars, every PC ever made, they work well enough. But the bottom line is, less complexity means less unreliability. And for that, the punch cards win hands down over ANY electronic voting system.
Fix the damn buttterfly ballot books, but otherwise the punch card system has been working amazingly well for a long time. It is NOT broken, it does NOT need to be "fixed" with complex and unreliable technology.
Did you sonsider that the lower resolution was actually caused by the interpolation functions of the camera itself? Those CCD "pixels" are not copied one by one into a file. An interpolation algoritm is run on the "data" to smooth out the edges of the pixels as well as alighing the RGB components (Which are offset in all current cameras). This has a severe blurring effect on the image data. It is most noticable by photographing text at various distances.
What you found is true, the actual resolution of a digital camera given a specific sharpness is about 1/4 the physical resolution of the CCD. But this also means that yes, a higher resolution CCD will give you a higher resolution image. So an 11MP camera WILL look better than a 5MP camera (Assuuming that the lens systems are not total crap)
BTW the glass elements of a camera do NOT limit the resolution of the film much at all (Again unless were talking total crap optics like in a 110 snappy camera). The size of the film grain does. ASA 100 film is much sharper than 400 becuase it has much finer grain.
Print out a 2 meg image at 8x10 in 1200 DPI then a 33 meg (11MP) then look at an 8x10 blowup made from 100 ASA consumer grade 35mm film.
2 meg image is VERY blurry compared to 35 mm. I of course havent seen the 11 MP camera output, but I can tell you that there is huge room for improvement over todays average 3MP cameras. And I'm not even talking about pro use. Just amateur photographer use.
Sure those people that never "needed" anything other than a 110 snappy camera wouldn't need it. But there are thousands of amateur photographers out there that would probably (like me) LOVE to have far more resolution that my current 3MP camera gives me.
I won't be shelling out whatever gawd awful price they'll want for it at first though:(
I don't know. 11 MB would be about a 33MB uncompressed image. 8.5x11@300 DPI is about 24 meg. and most consumer photo printers are atleast 1000 DPI. So you're getting a decent 8x10@400 DPI enlargement out of it. That's probably comparable to consumer grade 35mm film.
So it's kind of like saying "110 cameras were good enough for consumers, only professionals need a 35mm". That's not really true.
I think 11 MP is just about right to finally get rid of the 35 mm for any amateur but serious photographers, and actually doesn't come close to fulfilling the needs of the professional yet.
Only the price will probably keep it from being a consumer level item. Capability of the camera and the printers are already here and usable by consumer level er... consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
(Apologies to Jeff K.)
Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, it is a little more complicated to get a large rocket make it into space than just scaling up an Estes Big Bertha by strapping 3 D engines on it.
He is neither. He is an astute, open minded thinker that CAN see the forest for the trees. By being forced to give out the source AND allow anyone that receives the source to distribute it any way they want. You absolutely "effectively" give away the code for free.
And BSD truly is free in comparison. You are FREE to create both Open and Closed source from BSD code. That is freedom.
You seem to indicate that either or possibly both of these are false. Care to explain which, and how, rather than postulating on a person's motives?
Well considering that giving anyone your passphrase so they could decrypt something incriminating is itself an incriminating act, AND that that is not considered protected by the 5th, I doubt any fancier philosophies will hold up in court.
that you USED to be able to do that. Until it turned out the people were just installing the software and returning the disks for a refund.
It was the criminals in the first place that casuse such actions to be taken.
My anger is aimed where it belongs. On the pirates and defrauders that started this entire mess.
Doesn't faster and faster processors coupled with better and better compilers free the engineer from the drudgery and time sink of squeezing every last cpu cycle out of their button pressing code and leave them with more time to look at engineering better solutions to more complex issues?
Having lived through the last 15 years of processor/compiler advancement I can attest that the answer is a sreaming "YES"!
That's not to say that you shouldn't TOTALLY ignore the speed/bloat issue, but these days, REASONABLE attention to these things in the high level language is plenty for all but the few truly demanding tasks such as streaming data compression/encryption/transformation. And even then we may pass a poitn in time where that is even necessary. We've pretty much passed it with audio. Video is still a ways off. Real time 3d rendering with 5 mile horizons and 10 billion spline models with realistic lighting and physics on a $500 PC is still decades off (Just look at the latest computer game, then go outside and look at the forest or canyon and compare the two).
were going to replace software engineers.
It will not happen any time soon. Unless the entire human population geneticly changes to some other kind of animal that actually sits back and says. "Nah, that's enough, don't need to pursue anything more... ever." or AI actually becomes a reality.
Humans have always and will always be looking for the next thing in the unknown. As soon as engineers are freed of the deugery of re-doing what has been done before counteless times, they will move on to new things. Let the computer do the drudgery of wing design or component layout. We'll just get more interesting work done!
Single click open is not a good idea because it removes or makes much harder the ability to SELECT the item WITHOUT launching it. Something possibly done much more often than launching.
One click -> Select
Double-click -> Select and Launch
It's a good system. Single-click launch systems are more dangerous and more error prone. You should only Launch when your REALLY mean it. There's nothing worse than launching a hundred kwords. Or even one when all you REALLY wanted was to select a file for a cut and paste operation.
Intel's maybe? GNUs iron grip on Linux is fading. Personally, I say the faster the better. Maybe he finally realized it and this is a last ditch panic before he loses all control. A death rattle if you will.
I'm going to refer to "it" as "LiGNUx" from now on! Besides being the hardest to say, it's also all ha>or like! It's got that magical 1337 mystique about it!
"Bad reaction" indeed. I can't believe any sane person would have even suggested that name.
Hee Hee Hee It'll be hours before I stop giggling about "LiGNUx".
Yes, but modding a game is far simpler and yeilds results far superior than writing a game from scratch. It allows people to do much much more than they ever could in the past. That's his point.
The pros do more, the amatures do more, the users get more. It's good all around.
I'll tell you what's dead. Arcades. Brand new games look exactly the same as they did 15 years ago when they stopped development on the hardware and the gaming concepts. DDR is the single exception to that rule in the last decade. If you want to talk about something dying, talk about something that is REALLY dying!
Uh, that's because the I-Opener sucked and no one signed up for service. They weren't in the buisness to make $200 consoles and sell them to Linux hackers for $99 you know. YOU KNOW?
(damn I wish /. allowed post editing)
I meant to post this URL actually:
http://www.metropolis-records.com/
Er, what is there to "take back". There are amateurs and there are professionals and there always has been.
/because/ they are not involved in the pro music buisness. The pro music buisness evolved to create something that didn't even exist before. Wide-spread recognition for artists.
The amateurs are now and have always been unknown by more than a very local following
They really are two different things. The amateurs will never take over the pros. But they will never go away either. All it takes is the tiniest bit of effort on the "user" to look for them. But that really is the main problem. 99.9% of the people don't want to "work" for it.
What you are really calling for is the complete distruction of the pro music buisness. Then people will become so desperate that they will then have to put in that tiny bit of effort to find entertainment for themselves. Actually go out and listed to local music! This of course is just utopianizing.
Instead, just be true to yourself. Do the work yourself, find good indie bands or deal with small lablems like www.indistrialmusic.com. (There, I did my litle bit of evangelizing for today! Now imagine if everyone did that instead of just complaining all the time about how evil everything is?)
But also remember that musicians need to eat to, so even if it's indy music, please don't ask us to just give everything away for free. Please SUPPORT us by buying our music on-line and off.
Thank you.
That's hardly "realistic" though now is it? The idea that genetic mucking-about can create a new sense that is not based on science in any way? That's pure fantasy.
Both slashdot and the person that posted could be up for legal trouble for copyright infringment.
If that doesn't bother you, then why don't you log on with phoney information and post the article here yourself rather than asking someone else to break the law?
And this is different from restricting my "Use" of the code by distributing it how I like how? Maybe my entire "use" of the code is distributing it. How is restricting distribution any different from restricting the running of it. They are both actions that can be taken with the copyrighted object in question.
Contracts that restrict "use" of an item in any way whatsoever are all the same. The GPL saying I can't redistribute except on their terms is no different that the MS EULA that says the same thing.
Not letting me redistribute GPLed source on my own terms IS ENSLAVING and DEPRIVING me(the user) just as much as any MS EULA does!
Try reading the BSD liscense some time if you want to see an agreement that doesn't enslave the user...
Not true!
Source is copyrightable and binaries are not? That'll ne news to a world full of developers!
I suppose the original word document for a novel is copyrightable but the mass produced books are not? I don;t think so.
If (C) grants you the right to demand signatureless contracts on all users than surely the code generated from the source does also.
Yes, but Code is NOT a paintbrush. Code is also NOT art!
C, C++ JAVA, those are the paint brushes. The output of the code is the art.
But what is the code?
It is a tiny manefestation of the artists soul. Between the paint brush and the finished art is a human. The code IS the human in a microscopic captured for. The code is written by a human and the human has imbued the code with a subset of his soul like the human would imbue the brush as he is painting. It's like an artist "Magicly" teaching the brush what to paint, then days later having the brush paint the actual canvas (if that was possible).
The code is something new. It is neither the brush, nor the art. But a tiny displased human soul, ready to render out that tiny portion of the artists whims and desires on demand.
Well in that case I guess there is a human "Spirit" laying down the paint and creating the emotional imagry, whereas the souless "computer" was creating the imagry without there being any emotion behind it.
But of course a human did program the art software, producing imagery within a set of constraints, so the soul has been programmed in. It's probably infinately more "art" than anything painted by an elephant.
Besides all one has to do to see soulless and emotionless painting is to look at any Thomas Kincade work.
Gee, maybe we shouldn't be allowed to drive cars either?
Or MAYBE we shouldn't be allowed to post in an open forum. Given enough time, you're sure to say something stupid!
It is not possible to "verify" the correct function of any program or hardware beyond the simplest of machines. Punch card ballots come closest to being "verifiable" than anything electronic used for voting. No electronic voting system could ever be proven to be 100% correct O.S. or not.
Though we live with unverified and unverifiable systems all the time, planes, cars, every PC ever made, they work well enough. But the bottom line is, less complexity means less unreliability. And for that, the punch cards win hands down over ANY electronic voting system.
Fix the damn buttterfly ballot books, but otherwise the punch card system has been working amazingly well for a long time. It is NOT broken, it does NOT need to be "fixed" with complex and unreliable technology.
Did you sonsider that the lower resolution was actually caused by the interpolation functions of the camera itself? Those CCD "pixels" are not copied one by one into a file. An interpolation algoritm is run on the "data" to smooth out the edges of the pixels as well as alighing the RGB components (Which are offset in all current cameras). This has a severe blurring effect on the image data. It is most noticable by photographing text at various distances.
What you found is true, the actual resolution of a digital camera given a specific sharpness is about 1/4 the physical resolution of the CCD. But this also means that yes, a higher resolution CCD will give you a higher resolution image. So an 11MP camera WILL look better than a 5MP camera (Assuuming that the lens systems are not total crap)
BTW the glass elements of a camera do NOT limit the resolution of the film much at all (Again unless were talking total crap optics like in a 110 snappy camera). The size of the film grain does. ASA 100 film is much sharper than 400 becuase it has much finer grain.
Print out a 2 meg image at 8x10 in 1200 DPI then a 33 meg (11MP) then look at an 8x10 blowup made from 100 ASA consumer grade 35mm film.
:(
2 meg image is VERY blurry compared to 35 mm. I of course havent seen the 11 MP camera output, but I can tell you that there is huge room for improvement over todays average 3MP cameras. And I'm not even talking about pro use. Just amateur photographer use.
Sure those people that never "needed" anything other than a 110 snappy camera wouldn't need it. But there are thousands of amateur photographers out there that would probably (like me) LOVE to have far more resolution that my current 3MP camera gives me.
I won't be shelling out whatever gawd awful price they'll want for it at first though
I don't know. 11 MB would be about a 33MB uncompressed image. 8.5x11@300 DPI is about 24 meg. and most consumer photo printers are atleast 1000 DPI. So you're getting a decent 8x10@400 DPI enlargement out of it. That's probably comparable to consumer grade 35mm film.
So it's kind of like saying "110 cameras were good enough for consumers, only professionals need a 35mm". That's not really true.
I think 11 MP is just about right to finally get rid of the 35 mm for any amateur but serious photographers, and actually doesn't come close to fulfilling the needs of the professional yet.
Only the price will probably keep it from being a consumer level item. Capability of the camera and the printers are already here and usable by consumer level er... consumers.