In my case, I hardly notice the difference between three bulbs and two.
Neither. You take me too literally. Here's a New Revised Standard Version of my sentence for the literal minded among you who have had one drinkypoo too many:
That's why it doesn't matter [for the purposes of this discussion, not for purposes of religious, historical, or literary study] that we lack the original manuscripts of the Bible or Shakespeare.
Specifically, the printed word is more-or-less digital in the sense that any faithful copy has the same information content as the original. (Note for the literal minded: yes, mistakes can be made in the process, resulting in a loss of information.) Compare that with film, where each generation of copy suffers a loss of detail.
Interesting. I wasn't very familiar with the finer points of derived works, but what you say makes sense. Perhaps the Harold Lloyd films I saw had some new music added precisely to extend the copyright as derived works. If so, my interests as a consumer were served by that since I enjoyed both the films and the music.
Then why was I able to watch a series of Harold Lloyd silent comedies recently on TCM? They were even shown with some very nice small-orchestra scores that were added for the purpose of showing them on television. I think they may have been put into that form decades ago, so I'm not sure what their current copyright status is. But without the monetary incentive of copyright, at least when they were first prepped for television, I doubt that the Lloyd estate that owned them would have ever had the reason - or the money - to make them available to us, much less to augment them with some nice music.
I agree. My story is a bit of a special case. But the original poster had asked for a counter-example to his argument and I simply gave him one that I happened to be thinking about recently while reading a biography of Charlie Chaplin.
I think a book is fundamentally different from a film in the technical sense that any available copy can be reproduced without loss of quality. That's why it doesn't matter that we lack the original manuscripts of the Bible or Shakespeare.
In comparison, reproducing a film with the best possible quality would begin with locating the best possible print, then making it better via a restoration process. The ideal thing is the original camera negative or at least a master print. In the case of films from the silent era, the "best" print available often has short sections that are highly damaged but are still usable.
I assume that the (former) copyright holder would have the best print in most cases, though there may be cases where a library or collector actually has the best print - in which case my argument doesn't apply.
A while back, I watched a restored version of "Help!" from the 1960s that I got on DVD from my local library. It's not really a great film (even if you're a Beatles fan like me), but I was struck by how beautifully restored it was. I don't know how that would have ever happened if it weren't still under copyright.
FWIW, my story includes the element of the march of technological progress. Specifically, videotape such as VHS was once the best way to monetize an old film, but now HD or streaming - with much higher quality - might be. So, if copyright expires, there's no monetary incentive to transfer to the lastest-and-greatest technology, and to undertake the expensive process of digital restoration.
Admittedly, my example is a bit contrived, but as someone who is mildly a silent film buff, I've been surprised that Netflix and Amazon Prime seem rather lacking in them, whereas they show up regularly on Turner Classic Movies, and they're also available on DVDs - for a price. Oh, and some are available fore free on YouTube but with poor quality. I don't know all the reasons for all that, but I suspect that it involves the fact that TCM owns the copyrights (or at least the best prints) and prefers to monetize them without the help of competing services.
OK, I'll play. Here's an example I happened to be thinking of recently. Consider the case of a film from the silent era, 1894–1929. On a common-sense basis, it clearly should be in the public domain. After all, the people who made it are all dead - as likely are their heirs. So, who really deserves any money from something created that long ago?
However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film. It either sits in a vault somewhere, decomposing (maybe even on nitrate film - egad!), or maybe it was transferred onto videotape before its copyright expired. So, it's either not available at all, or maybe isn't available in the best possible quality. But if somebody still owned a valid copyright for it, they might have a financial incentive to make it available in HD.
Don't get me wrong, though - I don't think any film from the silent era should still be protected by copyright. But at least some case can be made for that. So there's your counter-argument.
The days of downloading programs from dubious vendors and websites zipping up files via shareware/freeware is over.
Darn, there goes my home software business that I've run on the side for the last 15 years under the old "shareware" model. And I always thought the biggest threat to extinction that I faced came from pimply-faced teenage hackers posting cracks for my registration keying system. (Nobody but teenagers would spend the time to crack such low-volume software. I ain't exactly selling Photoshop.)
Spock: Dr. McCoy, it appears that the Captain has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do? McCoy: I'm a doctor, not a psychiatrist, you pointy-eared computer! Spock: Is a psychiatrist not a type of physician, Dr. McCoy? McCoy: Look, Spock - my name's "McCoy", not "Webster." I'm a doctor, not a dictionary! Spock: Entomology notwithstanding, Doctor, is there nothing you can do to help the Captain with his fantasy of solving the drought problem via a multi-billion dollar pipeline from Seattle? McCoy: I'm doctor, not an engineer, Spock! Spock: (Pauses) Spock: Captain, it appears that the Doctor has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do? Kirk: It looks like the Californian water crisis will have to wait. We didn't beam down with any "Red Shirts" so we'll have to solve the doctor's problem ourselves. Phasors on stun, Mr. Spock. Fire at will. (Spock fires at Dr. McCoy. McCoy drops.) Kirk: Spock, scan the Doctor with the Tricorder. Any sign of intelligence? Spock: No, Captain. Intelligence readings are unchanged. However, the Doctor has been successfully stunned. Kirk: Good work, Spock. Now, back to the drought problem. Spock: But Captain, doesn't The Prime Directive prevent you from stepping in to solve Earth's environmental problems? Kirk: Precisely, Mr. Spock. But we finally solved the "McCoy" problem - at least for now. Spock: I see, Captain...your logic is impeccable... Kirk: Scottie, two to beam up.
Perhaps the recursion in "Hurd" is an endless one. Which would adequately explain why the development process never runs to completion. OTOH, if they had named it something that's merely vain rather than recursive like...I dunno..."Ricux", maybe it would be finished by now.
I would like to believe that Microsoft really has turned a new corner with this more open strategy but it really is hard.
"Only Nixon could go to China." How can you ever improve relations with a former enemy if you don't begin to trust them? It takes a bit of a leap of faith, then trust can be built in small steps over a period of time. We see the same sort of thing happening recently with Obama and Raul Castro. They're both taking small steps forward.
In Microsoft's case, we see them taking a series of small steps toward building credibility in the Open Source world. That won't happen instantly, and there are some folks for whom it will never happen (RMS and followers, you know who you are.) But every time Microsoft takes some small step in the right direction, I see folks here immediately wondering what they're really up to. In fact, last time this sort of thing came up here, someone even brought up the Trojan Horse analogy. Maybe - but probably not. I prefer the simpler explanation that Microsoft's realizes that their business interests have changed. In fact, they would be stupid not to.
Regardless, the war with Microsoft can never end for those who are unable to trust them under any circumstances. Just as World War II will never end for a Japanese soldier who refuses to leave the jungle. And like World War II, Microsoft's Windows Monopoly was over long ago.
Exactly. I acquired my first domain over 15 years ago when Network Solutions ran the whole thing, and the only TLDs that were commercially available were.com,.net, and.org. At that time, they cost $35 apiece per year. That $35 always seemed a bit excessive for something that was basically an entry in a computer database, but for just $105 per year, you could completely "own" a domain.
Then things changed: the Network Solutions monopoly ended and we had competition in the domain registry business. Prices went down to the point that you now can register a domain for $12 or less per year. However, the number of TLDs exploded.
I just did a search on my primary domain name (which I still own with.com,.net.,.org., and a few other TLDs), and the following alternatives were suggested at various price points:.club,.lawyer,.co,.guru,.us,.rocks,.today,.xyz,.city,.company,.solutions,.io,.expert,.life,.website, and others. Several of those go for $40 more apiece, so if I actually purchased all of them, it would cost many times the $105 I paid in the "bad old days" of the Network Solutions monopoly. Interestingly, the prices of the TLDs are all over the map, even though I assume that each costs the same to provide. (I used to buy ".info" at the teaser price of $0.99, but I stopped playing that game when they came up for renewal at full price.)
Of course, I don't buy every possible TLD for my small operation, but I assume that the big players of the net are forced to buy every single one that gets minted out. I assume the domain registrars of the world keep making money on these things since they keep minting them out.
Overall, I own a few domains, with a few primary TLDs for each. I host them all using shared web hosting. Ironically, I actually pay more each year for domain names than for the hosting itself. That seems really screwy. Makes me long for the bad old days. And that really.sucks.
I used Mercurial for a short time a few years ago. Although I focused above on Git, the same points apply to Mercurial since it's also a distributed version control system. Both use similar concepts, but both are very different from what people who haven't used a distributed version control system are used to. So, it's a huge gear shift to really grok the new concepts of either one. Likewise, it's probably pretty easy to switch between Git and Mercurial since the concepts are similar.
So, the problem with what you're saying is that my point doesn't involve the user interface of either one. Some nice GUI tools are available for both to make them easier for the newbie to learn. I use a couple of those for Git, along with a few Git commands when necessary. However, some folks use Git commands exclusively. Perhaps the same is true for Mercurial.
I used SVN casually for a few years, but I can't say I ever fully grasped its approach to branching and tagging, which are done mostly by using a set of specially named directories rather than as a fundamental feature of SVN itself. In contrast, Git's approach to those things make perfect sense to me.
After reading TFA, I found that Linus Torvalds made some of the same points, where "a traditional version control system" could be substituted wherever he uses "CVS":
The other big reason people thought git was hard is that git is very different. There are people who used things like CVS for a decade or two, and git is not CVS. Not even close. The concepts are different. The commands are different. Git never even really tried to look like CVS, quite the reverse. And if you've used a CVS-like system for a long time, that makes git appear complicated and needlessly different. People were put off by the odd revision numbers. Why is a git revision not "1.3.1" with nice incrementing numbers like it was in CVS? Why is it that odd scary 40-character HEX number?
But git wasn't "needlessly different." The differences are required. It's just that it made some people really think it was more complicated than it is, because they came from a very different background.
For those who are used to any of the older-style centralized revision control systems, it's a huge gear shift to begin using Git. And yes, it seems needlessly complicated, and seems to get in the way of getting things done. However, once you get over the hump and begin to "git" it [tee-hee], it seems very well designed and is very efficient to use.
To git over the hump, you really need to study it somewhere such as Pro Git. After that, you need some practice, as well some help from a buddy or two. Soon, it will click. After that, it takes some time and effort to truly master it - I've been using it for a couple of years and I don't think I'm quite there yet. But the more I understand it, the more I see the value of it. It's really a Good Thing.
I don't know if Stallman himself is humorless, but many of his followers seem to be. Maybe that comes from obsessing over the possibility of being enslaved by software - though it's hard to determine whether obsession causes humorlessness, or humorlessness causes obsession. Maybe a little of both.
I am still having a little trouble with "we don't need our spies to spy". Maybe we do.
Agreed. I thought the old idea of "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail" had gone out of style decades ago.
Like many other questionable things that governments do, I think the basic calculus of spying still holds: the other guys are going to spy, so we'll be at a severe disadvantage if we don't do the same. To do otherwise would be admirable but quite naive.
In that vein, the recurring self-righteous outrage at NSA that we see here following the Snowden revelations actually seems kindda cute. Aren't those kids just adorable?
Slashdot Mirror
In my case, I hardly notice the difference between three bulbs and two.
Neither. You take me too literally. Here's a New Revised Standard Version of my sentence for the literal minded among you who have had one drinkypoo too many:
That's why it doesn't matter [for the purposes of this discussion, not for purposes of religious, historical, or literary study] that we lack the original manuscripts of the Bible or Shakespeare.
Specifically, the printed word is more-or-less digital in the sense that any faithful copy has the same information content as the original. (Note for the literal minded: yes, mistakes can be made in the process, resulting in a loss of information.) Compare that with film, where each generation of copy suffers a loss of detail.
Interesting. I wasn't very familiar with the finer points of derived works, but what you say makes sense. Perhaps the Harold Lloyd films I saw had some new music added precisely to extend the copyright as derived works. If so, my interests as a consumer were served by that since I enjoyed both the films and the music.
Then why was I able to watch a series of Harold Lloyd silent comedies recently on TCM? They were even shown with some very nice small-orchestra scores that were added for the purpose of showing them on television. I think they may have been put into that form decades ago, so I'm not sure what their current copyright status is. But without the monetary incentive of copyright, at least when they were first prepped for television, I doubt that the Lloyd estate that owned them would have ever had the reason - or the money - to make them available to us, much less to augment them with some nice music.
I agree. My story is a bit of a special case. But the original poster had asked for a counter-example to his argument and I simply gave him one that I happened to be thinking about recently while reading a biography of Charlie Chaplin.
I think a book is fundamentally different from a film in the technical sense that any available copy can be reproduced without loss of quality. That's why it doesn't matter that we lack the original manuscripts of the Bible or Shakespeare.
In comparison, reproducing a film with the best possible quality would begin with locating the best possible print, then making it better via a restoration process. The ideal thing is the original camera negative or at least a master print. In the case of films from the silent era, the "best" print available often has short sections that are highly damaged but are still usable.
I assume that the (former) copyright holder would have the best print in most cases, though there may be cases where a library or collector actually has the best print - in which case my argument doesn't apply.
A while back, I watched a restored version of "Help!" from the 1960s that I got on DVD from my local library. It's not really a great film (even if you're a Beatles fan like me), but I was struck by how beautifully restored it was. I don't know how that would have ever happened if it weren't still under copyright.
FWIW, my story includes the element of the march of technological progress. Specifically, videotape such as VHS was once the best way to monetize an old film, but now HD or streaming - with much higher quality - might be. So, if copyright expires, there's no monetary incentive to transfer to the lastest-and-greatest technology, and to undertake the expensive process of digital restoration.
Admittedly, my example is a bit contrived, but as someone who is mildly a silent film buff, I've been surprised that Netflix and Amazon Prime seem rather lacking in them, whereas they show up regularly on Turner Classic Movies, and they're also available on DVDs - for a price. Oh, and some are available fore free on YouTube but with poor quality. I don't know all the reasons for all that, but I suspect that it involves the fact that TCM owns the copyrights (or at least the best prints) and prefers to monetize them without the help of competing services.
Yeah, poor Mozart was buried in an unmarked pauper's grave. Roll forward a hundred-plus years, though, and Gershwin's got himself a pretty nice place.
OK, I'll play. Here's an example I happened to be thinking of recently. Consider the case of a film from the silent era, 1894–1929. On a common-sense basis, it clearly should be in the public domain. After all, the people who made it are all dead - as likely are their heirs. So, who really deserves any money from something created that long ago?
However, if it's in the public domain, there is no monetary incentive to locate, digitize, and restore such a film. It either sits in a vault somewhere, decomposing (maybe even on nitrate film - egad!), or maybe it was transferred onto videotape before its copyright expired. So, it's either not available at all, or maybe isn't available in the best possible quality. But if somebody still owned a valid copyright for it, they might have a financial incentive to make it available in HD.
Don't get me wrong, though - I don't think any film from the silent era should still be protected by copyright. But at least some case can be made for that. So there's your counter-argument.
The days of downloading programs from dubious vendors and websites zipping up files via shareware/freeware is over.
Darn, there goes my home software business that I've run on the side for the last 15 years under the old "shareware" model. And I always thought the biggest threat to extinction that I faced came from pimply-faced teenage hackers posting cracks for my registration keying system. (Nobody but teenagers would spend the time to crack such low-volume software. I ain't exactly selling Photoshop.)
The time was on this site where you would have been laughed off praising a Micro$oft proprietary language. How times have changed. Pathetic.
Maybe at some point somebody directed those folks to this.
Spock: Dr. McCoy, it appears that the Captain has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do?
McCoy: I'm a doctor, not a psychiatrist, you pointy-eared computer!
Spock: Is a psychiatrist not a type of physician, Dr. McCoy?
McCoy: Look, Spock - my name's "McCoy", not "Webster." I'm a doctor, not a dictionary!
Spock: Entomology notwithstanding, Doctor, is there nothing you can do to help the Captain with his fantasy of solving the drought problem via a multi-billion dollar pipeline from Seattle?
McCoy: I'm doctor, not an engineer, Spock!
Spock: (Pauses)
Spock: Captain, it appears that the Doctor has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do?
Kirk: It looks like the Californian water crisis will have to wait. We didn't beam down with any "Red Shirts" so we'll have to solve the doctor's problem ourselves. Phasors on stun, Mr. Spock. Fire at will.
(Spock fires at Dr. McCoy. McCoy drops.)
Kirk: Spock, scan the Doctor with the Tricorder. Any sign of intelligence?
Spock: No, Captain. Intelligence readings are unchanged. However, the Doctor has been successfully stunned.
Kirk: Good work, Spock. Now, back to the drought problem.
Spock: But Captain, doesn't The Prime Directive prevent you from stepping in to solve Earth's environmental problems?
Kirk: Precisely, Mr. Spock. But we finally solved the "McCoy" problem - at least for now.
Spock: I see, Captain...your logic is impeccable...
Kirk: Scottie, two to beam up.
It was just a joke, I say a joke son.
(As senior rooster ’round here, it’s my duty, and my pleasure, to instruct junior roosters in the ancient art of roostery.)
There are also several modern examples of wild fox newborns raised as pets without significant problems.
Evidently they've never been put in charge of the hen house. Or elected to Congress.
(since you missed my last joke [which, admittedly, wasn't that good], I thought I'd try another one :-)
Why are they trying to narrow it to a single place?
Surely one place is best. And each scientist who studies dogs wants the pick of the litter.
Perhaps the recursion in "Hurd" is an endless one. Which would adequately explain why the development process never runs to completion. OTOH, if they had named it something that's merely vain rather than recursive like...I dunno..."Ricux", maybe it would be finished by now.
I would like to believe that Microsoft really has turned a new corner with this more open strategy but it really is hard.
"Only Nixon could go to China." How can you ever improve relations with a former enemy if you don't begin to trust them? It takes a bit of a leap of faith, then trust can be built in small steps over a period of time. We see the same sort of thing happening recently with Obama and Raul Castro. They're both taking small steps forward.
In Microsoft's case, we see them taking a series of small steps toward building credibility in the Open Source world. That won't happen instantly, and there are some folks for whom it will never happen (RMS and followers, you know who you are.) But every time Microsoft takes some small step in the right direction, I see folks here immediately wondering what they're really up to. In fact, last time this sort of thing came up here, someone even brought up the Trojan Horse analogy. Maybe - but probably not. I prefer the simpler explanation that Microsoft's realizes that their business interests have changed. In fact, they would be stupid not to.
Regardless, the war with Microsoft can never end for those who are unable to trust them under any circumstances. Just as World War II will never end for a Japanese soldier who refuses to leave the jungle. And like World War II, Microsoft's Windows Monopoly was over long ago.
Isn't that the point of the new tlds?
Exactly. I acquired my first domain over 15 years ago when Network Solutions ran the whole thing, and the only TLDs that were commercially available were .com, .net, and .org. At that time, they cost $35 apiece per year. That $35 always seemed a bit excessive for something that was basically an entry in a computer database, but for just $105 per year, you could completely "own" a domain.
Then things changed: the Network Solutions monopoly ended and we had competition in the domain registry business. Prices went down to the point that you now can register a domain for $12 or less per year. However, the number of TLDs exploded.
I just did a search on my primary domain name (which I still own with .com, .net., .org., and a few other TLDs), and the following alternatives were suggested at various price points: .club, .lawyer, .co, .guru, .us, .rocks, .today, .xyz, .city, .company, .solutions, .io, .expert, .life, .website, and others. Several of those go for $40 more apiece, so if I actually purchased all of them, it would cost many times the $105 I paid in the "bad old days" of the Network Solutions monopoly. Interestingly, the prices of the TLDs are all over the map, even though I assume that each costs the same to provide. (I used to buy ".info" at the teaser price of $0.99, but I stopped playing that game when they came up for renewal at full price.)
Of course, I don't buy every possible TLD for my small operation, but I assume that the big players of the net are forced to buy every single one that gets minted out. I assume the domain registrars of the world keep making money on these things since they keep minting them out.
Overall, I own a few domains, with a few primary TLDs for each. I host them all using shared web hosting. Ironically, I actually pay more each year for domain names than for the hosting itself. That seems really screwy. Makes me long for the bad old days. And that really .sucks.
I used Mercurial for a short time a few years ago. Although I focused above on Git, the same points apply to Mercurial since it's also a distributed version control system. Both use similar concepts, but both are very different from what people who haven't used a distributed version control system are used to. So, it's a huge gear shift to really grok the new concepts of either one. Likewise, it's probably pretty easy to switch between Git and Mercurial since the concepts are similar.
So, the problem with what you're saying is that my point doesn't involve the user interface of either one. Some nice GUI tools are available for both to make them easier for the newbie to learn. I use a couple of those for Git, along with a few Git commands when necessary. However, some folks use Git commands exclusively. Perhaps the same is true for Mercurial.
I used SVN casually for a few years, but I can't say I ever fully grasped its approach to branching and tagging, which are done mostly by using a set of specially named directories rather than as a fundamental feature of SVN itself. In contrast, Git's approach to those things make perfect sense to me.
After reading TFA, I found that Linus Torvalds made some of the same points, where "a traditional version control system" could be substituted wherever he uses "CVS":
The other big reason people thought git was hard is that git is very different. There are people who used things like CVS for a decade or two, and git is not CVS. Not even close. The concepts are different. The commands are different. Git never even really tried to look like CVS, quite the reverse. And if you've used a CVS-like system for a long time, that makes git appear complicated and needlessly different. People were put off by the odd revision numbers. Why is a git revision not "1.3.1" with nice incrementing numbers like it was in CVS? Why is it that odd scary 40-character HEX number?
But git wasn't "needlessly different." The differences are required. It's just that it made some people really think it was more complicated than it is, because they came from a very different background.
For those who are used to any of the older-style centralized revision control systems, it's a huge gear shift to begin using Git. And yes, it seems needlessly complicated, and seems to get in the way of getting things done. However, once you get over the hump and begin to "git" it [tee-hee], it seems very well designed and is very efficient to use.
To git over the hump, you really need to study it somewhere such as Pro Git. After that, you need some practice, as well some help from a buddy or two. Soon, it will click. After that, it takes some time and effort to truly master it - I've been using it for a couple of years and I don't think I'm quite there yet. But the more I understand it, the more I see the value of it. It's really a Good Thing.
Careful with that talk about the six-fingered among us being mutants. You might hurt my cat's feelings: she's polydactyl.
I swear I'm the only person in my subdivision who isn't talking on the phone while walking my dog.
Likewise, if you haven't bought a phone for your dog yet, I'm afraid I'll have to report you to the ASPCA.
It was just a joke, son, ah say, a joke. :-)
I don't know if Stallman himself is humorless, but many of his followers seem to be. Maybe that comes from obsessing over the possibility of being enslaved by software - though it's hard to determine whether obsession causes humorlessness, or humorlessness causes obsession. Maybe a little of both.
I am still having a little trouble with "we don't need our spies to spy". Maybe we do.
Agreed. I thought the old idea of "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail" had gone out of style decades ago.
Like many other questionable things that governments do, I think the basic calculus of spying still holds: the other guys are going to spy, so we'll be at a severe disadvantage if we don't do the same. To do otherwise would be admirable but quite naive.
In that vein, the recurring self-righteous outrage at NSA that we see here following the Snowden revelations actually seems kindda cute. Aren't those kids just adorable?