Of course I understand your point, but my attempt at sarcasm was meant to indicate that you are making your point too broadly. "Corporations hate innovation" does not explain why so many corporations fund university research. Nor does it explain many corporations' participation in innovative schemes that bring them no immediate benefit, notably IBM's contributions to Linux.
There is no a priori connection between pirates and temperature, and it would be surprising (i.e., not a simple explanation) if there were. However, there is one between IP laws and innovation: the former is intended to cause the latter. It would be surprising if it did not, and the correlative evidence supports the hypothesis that there is a connection.
You appear to be saying that correlation is irrelevant. Example: Putting my hand on the stove is correlated with burns on my hand. Since correlation does not imply causation, I will feel free to continue putting my hand on the stove, even though it is widely believed that the stove is a cause of hand burns.
An equally simple explanation would be that the corporate intrests involved in these highly innovative societies have caused these laws to be put into effect.
I was arguing that the laws have a positive effect on innovation. Even if I am right, it is not surprising that corporations or advocacy organizations would emerge to demand these laws.
So what you have to explain is why, in spite of the correlation, these laws have no effect on innovation. I would argue that there is no explanation simpler than causation.
The question is not whether innovation is possible without copyright. The question is whether copyright enables more innovation than is possible without it. The data points we have indicate that strong IP laws are correlated with highly innovative societies. Since that is the intent of these laws, then the simplest explanation is that the laws work, and this correlation is caused by those laws.
Tor is so easy to abuse (if you run a tor server) it's not even funny. Just take a look at the code, it's trivial to hack. It's funny how much of the OSS community are proverbial sheeple, believing that since it's open source, it must be secure.
It's for exactly this reason that Tor should adopt AGPL. That way, if the Chinese government ran a hacked Tor server, they would have to release the source code as well and the hack would be obvious.
Re:How is MATLAB better than Octave?
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
I'm interested: what are the benefits of MATLAB over Octave?
Firstly, speed. MATLAB has done a lot of work in optimizing their code for speed of execution, so that it is comparable in execution speed to writing from scratch in a compiled language such as C. This is key as far as I am concerned. Unless Octave has made order-of-magnitude improvements since I last looked at it (3-4 years ago), it would be simply impractical for me to do my work in Octave.
Secondly, breadth and quality of the software library. MATLAB has a routine -- generally fast and efficient -- that does just about any mathematically significant thing you can imagine (of course, some of these things are in "toolkits" that cost extra money).
Thirdly, convenience. MATLAB is a commercial product that I am paying money to use, so things like installation and support are expected. Meanwhile, I have never been able to successfully compile Octave from source -- the only times I have been able to use Octave is when I have been able to find a package for it. Granted, since I have MATLAB available I haven't tried very hard to solve my compilation problems; but Octave certainly did not make it very easy for me to try it out. Again, I haven't tried to use Octave in several years, so this might be better now.
If my institution did not pay for MATLAB, whether I would pay for it out of pocket would depend on why I was using it. I see MATLAB as a professional-grade tool, so if I needed it for a hobby project, I would probably either try Octave or write from scratch in C. If I was paying out of pocket to, e.g., start a personal consulting business, in which I needed to do heavy numerical analysis, I would consider my options carefully, but my initial impression is that MATLAB would be an essential buy. I have heard that a single license to the standard version of MATLAB (no toolkits) runs between $500 and $1000, so it's expensive but not completely ridiculous.
Re:Openness is Fundamental to Mathematics
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
I understand where you're coming from, but I have the luxury of being in a university environment with a MATLAB site license. I think the benefits are worth what the institution pays.
Re:Openness is Fundamental to Mathematics
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
Yes, but the point is the same since the environment is closed source.
Re:Openness is Fundamental to Mathematics
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying MATLAB is the best program ever, I'm just saying it's much better than Octave. Also, I don't know when you last used MATLAB... the loop handling used to be hopelessly slow but has become much better.
Re:Openness is Fundamental to Mathematics
on
Open Source Math
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, don't get your panties in a big bunch over this. Humans make mistakes in proofs all the time, many of which are not caught before publication (and many not even for some time afterward).
Also, although it's not in the field of theorem-proving, the mathematical package I use the most -- MATLAB -- is a million times better than the open source equivalent, Octave. I'm not going to use Octave simply because I can inspect the code, because who does that? An error in a software proof would be pretty obvious if it were checked with another independently written piece of software. With MATLAB, I can write my own alternative algorithm using C if I need to, though with significantly more effort and annoyance.
Furthermore, mathematicians are smart people who are fully aware of the implications of their assumptions, probably moreso than any other group of people I have encountered. Reading the set of comments accompanying this article, saying what mathematicians should and should not consider a proof, is like watching monkeys trying to use a can opener.
So you're saying that the Democratic party executive should not be allowed to set the requirements to get on the ballot in the Democratic party primary?
That's the problem with a lot of IP proponents. They hand wave a lot but they lack any actual rigorous evidence for this massive interference in the citizen's business.
"Hand wave"? I have no need of any evidence beyond the strong correlation between innovative societies and strong IP protection. This correlation is obvious and ubiquitous throughout the world.
The simplest explanation for this correlation is that IP protection fosters innovation. So the burden of proof is actually on you to demonstrate not only that this correlation is without causation, but also that innovation will flourish to an even larger degree if IP protections are removed.
Do you believe that if copyright was undone tomorrow, people would stop making art and creative works altogether? Many would stop, but everyone?
Of course not, although in your way of thinking, it must certainly be a strange coincidence that the most innovative and creative nation on Earth also has some of the strongest intellectual property protection.
Also, you're admitting that "many would stop" producing software? So either IP laws are justified in light of the constitution or writing software is not a useful art?
Given that the tecnobrega movement has shown that copyright protection is not necessary to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, isn't it time to reconsider the whole basis of copyright law?
Sure, as soon as I figure out how to make money by performing software on stage.
Why did it need to be "immediately obvious"? The pilot should take the extra 2 seconds to verify the gear was in the correct strate. The fact they didn't makes it 'pilot error'.
Maybe because people are not robots and sometimes forget, especially during a stressful phase such as landing an airplane? Good God. Please do not ever design anything on which human lives depend.
What you are suggesting, is selling criplled machines under the guise of security. Aside from being moraly retarded, it still ignores the issue of human nature.
You do not have a right, moral or otherwise, to do as you please with an object you own. The obvious counterexamples are motor vehicles and handguns, where your right to do as you please ends where it may cause harm to someone else. And since, in the hands of the public, personal computers are almost exclusively used as internet terminals, carelessness or incompetence with a computing device does indeed fit that standard -- that's the whole point of the article.
The idea of doing as you please with a computer was fine when only experts used computers attached to the internet, but the internet is now an important piece of international economic infrastructure. In light of the current severe threat environment in security, the notion of a "right" to do as you please should be viewed as baffling in light of the consequences that we are living with right now.
Your arguments that the idea is infeasible rely on straw man attacks.
Of course, what I mean is to forbid at a very low level in software or (preferably) in hardware. That is, the end user does not get the root password, ever. Only qualified professionals get the password. (And, before you take me too literally, the "root password" is also an analogy for a hard-core security model.)
On the other hand, we could solve this problem tomorrow by forbidding any user-installed or user-downloaded program to run with root privileges. The rest of the security problem would be solved by having all software digitally hashed and signed by its author, and verified by some trusted third party. Unfortunately this would put an end to hacking and Free software. So as long as unqualified amateurs can run arbitrary code, we will have this problem. It's kind of a corollary to Murphy's law.
My personal opinion is that the day is coming when software development will be restricted to professionals with qualifications. I will go further and predict that, within the next 10 years, a spectacular electronic attack will occur that will cost lives, disrupt the internet, and significantly damage the economy. After that, the call to professionalize the software industry will be irresistible. The comparison will be made to medicine, law, or structural engineering, where it is illegal to practice without a license, since errors in those fields will harm the public.
If the printer that RMS wanted to fix had a Tivo lockdown on the code, then, despite having the code to the driver, how would RMS have fixed the printer problem? OK, he could have fixed the code but that changed code would not have worked on the printer. So how does fixing the code fix the printer? Doesn't, so it would be against the ENTIRE REASON RMS made the GPL up.
Sure, but here's the thing. The GPL is now much larger than what RMS originally wanted it for; large enough that not everyone in the open source community agrees with the goals of the FSF. Yet the FSF created a non-backward-compatible license, effectively saying "you're with us or against us". As any intelligent person could have predicted, this is driving a wedge through the community. (And I count the FSF directors as highly intelligent, so surely they got exactly what they wanted.)
The "or any later version" clause is not a concern for the user. It's a concern for the developer, since (as we have seen) it may be used to add restrictions on the code that were not originally desired (since GPL2 "or later" linked with GPL3 is always GPL3) or break the open source chain (since GPL2 without "or later" cannot be legally bundled with GPL3). I don't see why forced upgrades that break software are not acceptable for proprietary software companies, but completely acceptable for the FSF.
By pulling this kind of a stunt, the FSF has permanently lost my trust and the trust of many other developers. I think history will show that releasing GPL3 in its current form was a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I understand your point, but my attempt at sarcasm was meant to indicate that you are making your point too broadly. "Corporations hate innovation" does not explain why so many corporations fund university research. Nor does it explain many corporations' participation in innovative schemes that bring them no immediate benefit, notably IBM's contributions to Linux.
I think you should write to Google and Intel, and explain to them that they should fire all their engineers since innovation is bad for them.
There is no a priori connection between pirates and temperature, and it would be surprising (i.e., not a simple explanation) if there were. However, there is one between IP laws and innovation: the former is intended to cause the latter. It would be surprising if it did not, and the correlative evidence supports the hypothesis that there is a connection.
You appear to be saying that correlation is irrelevant. Example: Putting my hand on the stove is correlated with burns on my hand. Since correlation does not imply causation, I will feel free to continue putting my hand on the stove, even though it is widely believed that the stove is a cause of hand burns.
An equally simple explanation would be that the corporate intrests involved in these highly innovative societies have caused these laws to be put into effect.
I was arguing that the laws have a positive effect on innovation. Even if I am right, it is not surprising that corporations or advocacy organizations would emerge to demand these laws.
So what you have to explain is why, in spite of the correlation, these laws have no effect on innovation. I would argue that there is no explanation simpler than causation.
The question is not whether innovation is possible without copyright. The question is whether copyright enables more innovation than is possible without it. The data points we have indicate that strong IP laws are correlated with highly innovative societies. Since that is the intent of these laws, then the simplest explanation is that the laws work, and this correlation is caused by those laws.
Tor is so easy to abuse (if you run a tor server) it's not even funny. Just take a look at the code, it's trivial to hack. It's funny how much of the OSS community are proverbial sheeple, believing that since it's open source, it must be secure.
It's for exactly this reason that Tor should adopt AGPL. That way, if the Chinese government ran a hacked Tor server, they would have to release the source code as well and the hack would be obvious.
I'm interested: what are the benefits of MATLAB over Octave?
Firstly, speed. MATLAB has done a lot of work in optimizing their code for speed of execution, so that it is comparable in execution speed to writing from scratch in a compiled language such as C. This is key as far as I am concerned. Unless Octave has made order-of-magnitude improvements since I last looked at it (3-4 years ago), it would be simply impractical for me to do my work in Octave.
Secondly, breadth and quality of the software library. MATLAB has a routine -- generally fast and efficient -- that does just about any mathematically significant thing you can imagine (of course, some of these things are in "toolkits" that cost extra money).
Thirdly, convenience. MATLAB is a commercial product that I am paying money to use, so things like installation and support are expected. Meanwhile, I have never been able to successfully compile Octave from source -- the only times I have been able to use Octave is when I have been able to find a package for it. Granted, since I have MATLAB available I haven't tried very hard to solve my compilation problems; but Octave certainly did not make it very easy for me to try it out. Again, I haven't tried to use Octave in several years, so this might be better now.
If my institution did not pay for MATLAB, whether I would pay for it out of pocket would depend on why I was using it. I see MATLAB as a professional-grade tool, so if I needed it for a hobby project, I would probably either try Octave or write from scratch in C. If I was paying out of pocket to, e.g., start a personal consulting business, in which I needed to do heavy numerical analysis, I would consider my options carefully, but my initial impression is that MATLAB would be an essential buy. I have heard that a single license to the standard version of MATLAB (no toolkits) runs between $500 and $1000, so it's expensive but not completely ridiculous.
I understand where you're coming from, but I have the luxury of being in a university environment with a MATLAB site license. I think the benefits are worth what the institution pays.
Yes, but the point is the same since the environment is closed source.
I'm not saying MATLAB is the best program ever, I'm just saying it's much better than Octave. Also, I don't know when you last used MATLAB ... the loop handling used to be hopelessly slow but has become much better.
Well, don't get your panties in a big bunch over this. Humans make mistakes in proofs all the time, many of which are not caught before publication (and many not even for some time afterward).
Also, although it's not in the field of theorem-proving, the mathematical package I use the most -- MATLAB -- is a million times better than the open source equivalent, Octave. I'm not going to use Octave simply because I can inspect the code, because who does that? An error in a software proof would be pretty obvious if it were checked with another independently written piece of software. With MATLAB, I can write my own alternative algorithm using C if I need to, though with significantly more effort and annoyance.
Furthermore, mathematicians are smart people who are fully aware of the implications of their assumptions, probably moreso than any other group of people I have encountered. Reading the set of comments accompanying this article, saying what mathematicians should and should not consider a proof, is like watching monkeys trying to use a can opener.
Hey, guess what: you can live in such a place! I assume you'll be on the next plane out.
All the evidence I've seen is that tin whiskers are 99% a non-issue panic.
Given that there are at least 100 nuclear reactors in the world, I'm not exactly reassured.
Is it because he is just too damn smart and over-qualified?
Or is it because his campaign is just a thinly disguised advertisement for his show?
So you're saying that the Democratic party executive should not be allowed to set the requirements to get on the ballot in the Democratic party primary?
If "noticing things" is "religious devotion", then I'm the freaking Pope.
That's the problem with a lot of IP proponents. They hand wave a lot but they lack any actual rigorous evidence for this massive interference in the citizen's business.
"Hand wave"? I have no need of any evidence beyond the strong correlation between innovative societies and strong IP protection. This correlation is obvious and ubiquitous throughout the world.
The simplest explanation for this correlation is that IP protection fosters innovation. So the burden of proof is actually on you to demonstrate not only that this correlation is without causation, but also that innovation will flourish to an even larger degree if IP protections are removed.
Do you believe that if copyright was undone tomorrow, people would stop making art and creative works altogether? Many would stop, but everyone?
Of course not, although in your way of thinking, it must certainly be a strange coincidence that the most innovative and creative nation on Earth also has some of the strongest intellectual property protection.
Also, you're admitting that "many would stop" producing software? So either IP laws are justified in light of the constitution or writing software is not a useful art?
Given that the tecnobrega movement has shown that copyright protection is not necessary to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, isn't it time to reconsider the whole basis of copyright law?
Sure, as soon as I figure out how to make money by performing software on stage.
Why did it need to be "immediately obvious"? The pilot should take the extra 2 seconds to verify the gear was in the correct strate. The fact they didn't makes it 'pilot error'.
Maybe because people are not robots and sometimes forget, especially during a stressful phase such as landing an airplane? Good God. Please do not ever design anything on which human lives depend.
What you are suggesting, is selling criplled machines under the guise of security. Aside from being moraly retarded, it still ignores the issue of human nature.
You do not have a right, moral or otherwise, to do as you please with an object you own. The obvious counterexamples are motor vehicles and handguns, where your right to do as you please ends where it may cause harm to someone else. And since, in the hands of the public, personal computers are almost exclusively used as internet terminals, carelessness or incompetence with a computing device does indeed fit that standard -- that's the whole point of the article.
The idea of doing as you please with a computer was fine when only experts used computers attached to the internet, but the internet is now an important piece of international economic infrastructure. In light of the current severe threat environment in security, the notion of a "right" to do as you please should be viewed as baffling in light of the consequences that we are living with right now.
Your arguments that the idea is infeasible rely on straw man attacks.
Of course, what I mean is to forbid at a very low level in software or (preferably) in hardware. That is, the end user does not get the root password, ever. Only qualified professionals get the password. (And, before you take me too literally, the "root password" is also an analogy for a hard-core security model.)
On the other hand, we could solve this problem tomorrow by forbidding any user-installed or user-downloaded program to run with root privileges. The rest of the security problem would be solved by having all software digitally hashed and signed by its author, and verified by some trusted third party. Unfortunately this would put an end to hacking and Free software. So as long as unqualified amateurs can run arbitrary code, we will have this problem. It's kind of a corollary to Murphy's law.
My personal opinion is that the day is coming when software development will be restricted to professionals with qualifications. I will go further and predict that, within the next 10 years, a spectacular electronic attack will occur that will cost lives, disrupt the internet, and significantly damage the economy. After that, the call to professionalize the software industry will be irresistible. The comparison will be made to medicine, law, or structural engineering, where it is illegal to practice without a license, since errors in those fields will harm the public.
Don't listen to him, he made baby GNUsus cry.
If the printer that RMS wanted to fix had a Tivo lockdown on the code, then, despite having the code to the driver, how would RMS have fixed the printer problem? OK, he could have fixed the code but that changed code would not have worked on the printer. So how does fixing the code fix the printer? Doesn't, so it would be against the ENTIRE REASON RMS made the GPL up.
Sure, but here's the thing. The GPL is now much larger than what RMS originally wanted it for; large enough that not everyone in the open source community agrees with the goals of the FSF. Yet the FSF created a non-backward-compatible license, effectively saying "you're with us or against us". As any intelligent person could have predicted, this is driving a wedge through the community. (And I count the FSF directors as highly intelligent, so surely they got exactly what they wanted.)
The "or any later version" clause is not a concern for the user. It's a concern for the developer, since (as we have seen) it may be used to add restrictions on the code that were not originally desired (since GPL2 "or later" linked with GPL3 is always GPL3) or break the open source chain (since GPL2 without "or later" cannot be legally bundled with GPL3). I don't see why forced upgrades that break software are not acceptable for proprietary software companies, but completely acceptable for the FSF.
By pulling this kind of a stunt, the FSF has permanently lost my trust and the trust of many other developers. I think history will show that releasing GPL3 in its current form was a mistake.