People would spend time doing what they wanted to do which could include art, literature, sport, playing video games, learning a language, studying science, travelling and many other things.
Most people don't want to those things. They want to sit on their butts, use drugs, eat, fuck and sleep.
History has shown what happens when the latter get pushed past the breaking point. It's usually messy and ends the lives of some of those that really had a lot to lose.
So, history has shown that "self interest" doesn't actually stop this until it's too late.
So how would a site operator go about letting a viewer pay for a single page, as opposed to paying for a year's access to the site? The fairly high per-transaction fees of credit cards and Bitcoin rule out their use for micropayments.
I think it could be implemented by a trusted middleman. Something like paypal, where you can transfer $10 into an account using a traditional money transfer method, and it takes out a micropayment every time you read an article.
Of course, a few problems still remain. For instance, I don't want to be paying for stuff I don't want, or overpaying for stuff, but on the other hand, I don't want a huge hassle every time I do want to pay.
On my computer, Adblock Plus uses 111MB right now, and uBlock uses 60MB. This tab with Slashdot open uses 82MB. It's a lot of memory, but not so much that I notice anything in the performance.
You are describing businesses that we do not need. They should go out of business.
For the 90% that they just copy and paste from a newsfeed, I agree. But the 10% they add from their own reporting we lose too, because that 10% isn't interesting or big enough to warrant an expensive subscription.
This may be a problem for them, but it's a boon for the rest of us.
When I visit a website now that will disappear in the future, it's not exactly a boon for me.
Newspapers and such can use the paywall method, perhaps with "10% free so you see that their stuff is good, pay if you want the rest too"
The problem with newspapers is that there are hundreds/thousands of newspaper sites that take 90% of their content from AP/Reuters or other press agency streams. Still, they have their own website, with their own office, and their own paid people. This is a huge waste of resources to duplicate many of the same articles. So, if I was forced to pay, I'd pay for a simple automatic aggregator site that just copies the original press agency articles, and the newspaper sites would still go broke.
The BSD license does NOT give you the right to relicense the work.
As long as you keep the BSD clauses, there's no rule that says you can't redistribute it with a GPL license on it, without making any change to the code or adding GPL code to it.
Still.. no one seems to have answered the fundamental question of who is going to pay for the web.
Or more to the point, how *you* are going to pay for the web.
Good question. Some sites are offering a option to get a subscription, but I'm not really interested in paying $5 a month (or even more) for some local newspaper subscription in a country or state that I'm only visiting this time because I followed a link in someone's Twitter post.
I guess the best model is a payment per visit, but it needs to be effortless and really cheap.
The question about Win10 was to demonstrate the sillyness of the line: "It denies freedoms that are otherwise perfectly reasonable, and would exist were the GPL not denying them."
The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive
Of course, that's the whole point. As the BSD license shows, the extra freedom allows people to take your code, modify it, and parade it around without giving you the right to take the modifications back to your own code. The GPL takes away your freedom to do such things.
That's not hypocrisy.
Of course, you could implement a C/C++ interpreter in Rust, including the preprocessor, and all its unsafe practices. So, Rust is still unsafe on a higher level.
You can't relicense BSD code as GPL without the permisson of the author.
Why not ? The 2-clause BSD license says:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Nothing in those two clauses prevents licensing under GPL.
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
Of course I understand. That was the whole point of the GPL. It gives you certain rights, but not the freedom to take the same rights away from others. Sounds like a fair trade to me, but there are plenty of other licenses to choose from if you don't like it.
Slashdot Mirror
You can also get a higher transaction rate by increasing block size.
One side can back up their needs with sticks and stones, and the other side can back it up with aimbots.
So... free market with wealth tax and basic income would give us an automated post scarcity utopia.
The rich people will consider your wealth tax and reject it.
People would spend time doing what they wanted to do which could include art, literature, sport, playing video games, learning a language, studying science, travelling and many other things.
Most people don't want to those things. They want to sit on their butts, use drugs, eat, fuck and sleep.
History has shown what happens when the latter get pushed past the breaking point. It's usually messy and ends the lives of some of those that really had a lot to lose.
So, history has shown that "self interest" doesn't actually stop this until it's too late.
Why would the machine owners want to keep the others alive ?
If the machines existed today, they'd be purchased; regardless of the minimum wage.
Not if the machines cost more than minimum wage.
and I sure as heck don't want a robot or some automation preparing my food, either.
Will you be inspecting the kitchen area, then ?
So how would a site operator go about letting a viewer pay for a single page, as opposed to paying for a year's access to the site? The fairly high per-transaction fees of credit cards and Bitcoin rule out their use for micropayments.
I think it could be implemented by a trusted middleman. Something like paypal, where you can transfer $10 into an account using a traditional money transfer method, and it takes out a micropayment every time you read an article. Of course, a few problems still remain. For instance, I don't want to be paying for stuff I don't want, or overpaying for stuff, but on the other hand, I don't want a huge hassle every time I do want to pay.
On my computer, Adblock Plus uses 111MB right now, and uBlock uses 60MB. This tab with Slashdot open uses 82MB. It's a lot of memory, but not so much that I notice anything in the performance.
You are describing businesses that we do not need. They should go out of business.
For the 90% that they just copy and paste from a newsfeed, I agree. But the 10% they add from their own reporting we lose too, because that 10% isn't interesting or big enough to warrant an expensive subscription.
This may be a problem for them, but it's a boon for the rest of us.
When I visit a website now that will disappear in the future, it's not exactly a boon for me.
The entire thing is handled online, and then in person you just say "yes"/"confirm" to all the information on the form, that's it.
It sounds like it would be a lot easier to lie without invoking suspicion compared to answering questions in the airport for real.
Newspapers and such can use the paywall method, perhaps with "10% free so you see that their stuff is good, pay if you want the rest too"
The problem with newspapers is that there are hundreds/thousands of newspaper sites that take 90% of their content from AP/Reuters or other press agency streams. Still, they have their own website, with their own office, and their own paid people. This is a huge waste of resources to duplicate many of the same articles. So, if I was forced to pay, I'd pay for a simple automatic aggregator site that just copies the original press agency articles, and the newspaper sites would still go broke.
The BSD license does NOT give you the right to relicense the work.
As long as you keep the BSD clauses, there's no rule that says you can't redistribute it with a GPL license on it, without making any change to the code or adding GPL code to it.
Still.. no one seems to have answered the fundamental question of who is going to pay for the web. Or more to the point, how *you* are going to pay for the web.
Good question. Some sites are offering a option to get a subscription, but I'm not really interested in paying $5 a month (or even more) for some local newspaper subscription in a country or state that I'm only visiting this time because I followed a link in someone's Twitter post. I guess the best model is a payment per visit, but it needs to be effortless and really cheap.
AdBlock plus shows you the acceptable ads by default, but it has an option to block them anyway.
Those aren't flaws in the analysis, just some minor exceptions.
The question about Win10 was to demonstrate the sillyness of the line: "It denies freedoms that are otherwise perfectly reasonable, and would exist were the GPL not denying them."
The fact is that the GPL is restrictive, it has benevolent motivations, perhaps socially good motivations, but its still restrictive
Of course, that's the whole point. As the BSD license shows, the extra freedom allows people to take your code, modify it, and parade it around without giving you the right to take the modifications back to your own code. The GPL takes away your freedom to do such things. That's not hypocrisy.
Of course, you could implement a C/C++ interpreter in Rust, including the preprocessor, and all its unsafe practices. So, Rust is still unsafe on a higher level.
You can't relicense BSD code as GPL without the permisson of the author.
Why not ? The 2-clause BSD license says:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Nothing in those two clauses prevents licensing under GPL.
SO yes, the GPL has removed freedoms from the code that was formerly BSD licensed.
Yes, that's the consequence of the freedom given by the BSD license. It allows others to take its code, modify it, and parade it around.
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
Of course I understand. That was the whole point of the GPL. It gives you certain rights, but not the freedom to take the same rights away from others. Sounds like a fair trade to me, but there are plenty of other licenses to choose from if you don't like it.
Whereas, something like a BSD or Apache license places very few limitations on your 'freedom".
Well, then it sounds like you should use a BSD or Apache license for your open source project. Nobody's forcing you to use GPL if you don't like it.
Freedom can only be taken away, and that's exactly what the GPL does
If you don't like it, don't use it.