Hey now Rocky - It is a nested thread, don't forget to close your parenthesis. I was responding to the reply from "The Ultimate Badass"
(the_ultimate_badass@hotmail.com) on Sunday August 19, @04:37AM (#2174596)(User #450974 Info), not to the original study.
As an aside, although the term "Christian Fundamentalist" certainly doesn't apply to the original study performed in Japan, the term "neo-conservative" probably does, but in a different sense than it would in this country. From my faraway perspective here is the USA, I've been hearing a lot about the neo-conservative political movement in Japan that espouses a return to more traditional cultural values, and an end to the post-war cultural internationalization. One of the recent news stories I read mentioned a controversy over history textbooks that failed to mention the WWII atrocities committed by the Japanese military in CHina and Korea, creating an international incident. One of the hallmarks of this movement seems to be "we've apologized enough"... Perhaps the conclusions reached in this study (completely unjustified from the data) are a reflection of this political trend as well, although this is pure speculation on my part.
No, extermists are needed to make room for the moderates. The extremists are the ones who break new ground and lead the way for the rest of us to follow as far as we choose. They are necessary for any political movement, and usually end up as martyrs who are sacrificed in the end. Both factions are needed.
Raymond essay is disingenuous in that he evades the whole point of Kuhn and
Stallman's
essay. Kuhn and Stallman clearly are talking about freedom for the user.
Raymond begs the question by addressing freedom for the programmer.
Ultimately, which is the more important?
One delusion that some programmer's often operate under is that they are
creating a work in isolation from everybody else's contributions. Most
of what we leverage in our creative works has come to us for free, under
the principles of academic freedom. In many ways, RMS has simply reformulated these principles into a
binding form specific to computer software. I agree with his effort
to eliminate the free riders that would attempt to appropriate the vast body
of prior art for their own personal gain.
Interesting point you make, but I see it more as an issue of censoring the arts, and legislating what should be my personal choice as a parent. Yes, I have children, and my youngest son is sitting behind me right now playing Tribes 2 on the windows box. My choice, not yours or anyone else's.
Besides, creation of game content is something of a cottage industry, generally not undertaken by major corporations.
Do you have any actual *evidence* that "the Columbine tragedy prompted
a crackdown on delinquency and antisocial behaviour among teens", or
is that just your impression from watching too much Fox News?
The five years preceding 1999 showed a drop in crime statistics purely
because of broader social trends, particularly a general increase in prosperity,
plus a marked increase in police activity in troubled areas, such as South
Central LA. (Watts is now an armed police camp, inundated with social
workers.) (emphasis mine)
That's a lovely solution you envision for us. I suppose your vision
would be complete if the entire country became "an armed police camp". Crime
statistics would certainly drop then!
Legislating based on crime fighting leads to more oppressive society for
everyone. It works like this: 1) Mass media news organizations, lacking
journalistic integrity and in search of ratings, oversensationalizes crime
anecdotes, 2) Weak-minded people, unable to think for themselves and getting
all of their information from television, are frightened into thinking that
crime is on the rise. 3) Demagogue politicians, afraid to take on the risky
issues, pass legislation funding more police and more prisons, while simultaneously
creating whole new classes of "crime". 4) Criminalized general populace,
in fear of either being victimized or arrested, stay home at night and watch
more TV. 5) Return to 1).
This is a typical fascist neo-conservative attitude: less government for the holy corporations, more government for individuals and families. These rants, purporting concern for children, are actually just a thinly veiled attempt to ram the christian fundamentalist religious view down everyone else's throats. I take the opposite view: more government in the boardrooms, less government in our bedrooms and living rooms. If anything is going to cause a downhill slide into depravity and violence, it is the runaway power and arrogance of the major coporations of our time, subverting democracy, inhibiting scientific progress, and destroying families by exerting constant downwards pressure on our standard of living.
Some bands (Dave Matthews Band and Metallica come to mind immediately)
do not discourage the taping of concerts (that said, some venues, most of
which are owned in one way or another by some form of government discourage
it.)
I knew that DMB is taper-friendly, but I didn't know that Metallica is
taper-friendly. If that is true, then it sheds a different light on
their anti-Napster outburst. My own personal ethic requires that I
either buy the official releases of a taper-friendly band, or forgo listening
to the music.
I am curious about the last part of your statement. Are you suggesting
that governments somehow discourage taping of live music, even if the musicans
allow it? Do you have some evidence of this, or could you provide examples?
Interesting.
When you go to a concert, you're not really obtaining the use of IP.
Each concert is different than others, especially if you're going to a concert
by a great live-entertainer (changes to songs, jam sessions, etc.), but even
if you're not, then there is the atmosphere, the collective experience of
being with n other people who have an interest in the same
music.
Good point on the "great live-entertainer". What I am calling the
etree model works best for this type of musician, and probably encourages
certain musical genres over others. Jam-rock, jazz, bluegrass, and
free-rhyming rap music are all highly improvisational: each concert is unique,
so there is greater incentive for the fan to attend live performances whenever
possible, and a greater motivation to collect and trade recordings of each
performance that cannot be attended. Even classical music is said to
have been very improvisational in its original form, and has only ossified
through repetition over a long period of time.
I agree that the collective experience is definitely part of the attraction.
When engaged in an evolution vs. creationism "barroom debate" years
ago, the creationist posed the question, "Oh yeah, so then explain why we
humans like music?". I was taken aback, and I am afraid I let Sir Charles
down that night. I pondered this question for quite a while, and (without
devolving into a really long off-topic essay) realized the answer probably
lies in the survival advantage obtained in encouraging bonding between
members of the tribe, and the resultant selection pressure placed on the
development of a superior "musical organ", similar to Chomsky's postulated
language organ. That is why I believe we still find the collective
musical experience so compelling.
Which brings me back to my point: the "superstar and nothing else"
model, pushed on us by the recording industry and the rapidly conglomerating
broadcast radio industry, has the effect of severely restricting our opportunity
to partake in this compelling experience of enjoying live music. Small
club venues have been under pressure for years, slowly dying off under pressure
of police forces determined to close "drug dens" and "rave clubs", and zoned
out of existence by the well-organized groups of religious zealots. The
current model of music distribution greatly accelerates this destruction.
When I was younger, I remember many concerts being held in local parks,
on the county fairgrounds, in the city square, out on the beach, and in other
public places. We had a great local band that would perform across
the street from my childhood home, playing in their garage for large street
parties. These types of events are far less frequent now, in my observation.
Ask any local musician how easy it is to make a living playing music.
Using the file-sharing capabilities of the internet, we can bring the
whole rotten system down, and replace it with one that will encourage more
live performances, will support more musicians with a reasonable standard
of living, and, in general, benefit everyone except the currently powerful
recording and broadcast industries (and perhaps a handful of mostly undeserving
"superstars"). Change may be slow, but I think it is inevitable, and
it can't happen soon enough for me.
Well, on slashdot, where moderation points bear an inverse exponential
relationship to posting order, and where text blurbs are the equivalent of
TV sound bites, I am sure I must be the last one viewing this topic, but
if you happen to read this, thank you for your thought-provoking reply.
How many napster users? Between 10E7 and 10E8, from the reported estimates,
and the mass disobedience is still occurring, only shifted to gnutella and
offshore napsters. How many users of these file sharing services will
ever be guiled by the corporate IP propaganda? Also, how much longer before
politicians begin to feel the grassroots heat from these constituents?
All that is required is some staying power, and a quick put-down of the bleeding-heart
neoconservatives whining about the so-called "rights" of the wealthy corporations.
As to what constitutes a "mass" movement, think in terms of critical mass.
In the short term, critical mass has already been reached - witness the self-destructive
frenzied overreaction of the RIAA. In the medium term, the number needs
to be sufficient to cause elected representatives to fear losing their jobs.
In the long term, the number needs to be sufficient to win the hearts and
sympathies of a majority of those who will be taking the reins of power in
the future. In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised to see the current
system collapse of its own weight: the natural sense of human
justice and the economic forces are ultimately on our side
That is a very insightful and useful distinction, contrasting artists and
entertainers, thank you. I think there is one quality that real artists
have that entertainers lack: honesty, pure raw honesty that manifests itself
as integrity in their art. Entertainers usually lack this quality to
varying degrees, as they are more worried about what they think might please
their fans, and thereby fill their coffers.
Possibly, arguably, online music trading affects the sales a handful of fatcat
"stars", like Madonna and Don Henley and Britney Spears and those Metallica
guys. I think it actually helps these people, by exposing their music
to a wider audience. I also think that the demise of the major music
distributors would help these stars, by returning a larger proportion of
profits to them, but let's say for the sake of argument that online music
trading "hurts" these people. Balance that harm against the harm done
to everyone else, the consumers, and yes, the harm done to thousands of struggling
artists who can't get a big recording contract, not because they're not good
enough, but because they can't break past the corporate gatekeepers. Face
it, there is a near monopoly on music distribution in this country, and it
is hurting the public, the state of the arts, and most of the real artists.
Britney Spears doesn't want to compete with a truly vibrant music scene,
with bands playing around every corner; who would listen to her, then?
Part of the problem is that live music is being unnecessarily restricted
in this country. When is the last time you attended a major concert,
and you weren't threatened with a body cavity search, charged outrageous
prices for parking, prevented from bringing any kind of refreshments, and
smacked in the face with extremely predatory ticket prices and concession
prices. Smaller, competing music venues are continually threatened
and shut down, either by monopolistic action by mega-corporations such as
Clear Channel, or under the guise of draconian drug laws. Free hint:
that is how monopolies operate. Another free hint: the artists
get only a tiny fraction of this money. Final hint: with the advent
of the internet, the services of these big music distributors are no longer
required.
Sorry, this is a cultural war, and somebody is going to get hurt either way.
You seem to be into self-flagellation, by mouthing the politically correct
line. You should learn to stand up for your own rights, instead of
trading your own real rights in favor of the legally fictitious rights of
Madonna and the like. Get a sense of proportion.
What you fail to realize that the copyright laws, in their present form,
are stealing off of you and me and everyone else. Copyright is supposed
to encourage the
useful arts and sciences for the benefit of the public
. It is clear that the copyright laws of today are written not to benefit
the public, but to preserve the excessive profits of a few major corporations.
Disobedience of unjust laws is not only justified, it is our duty as
citizens.
Current copyright law doesn't even benefit the artists. There is much
less live music in this country than there was 30 years ago, before the wave
of corporate mega-mergers hit in the music industry. The
etree
model of music distribution is preferable to the copyright-heavy
oligopolic
distribution model we have today. It works like this: Musicians
derive their income chiefly from live performances. In turn, they allow
their fans to record the live performances for free, and trade the recordings
for non-commercial use only. The recordings serve to generate a larger
following, so demand for live musical performances rises, and the venues
are always filled. The Grateful Dead outearned Micheal Jackson in his
heydey using this approach. Today, the model is being increasingly
used, and there are hundreds of taper-friendly
bands
. The benefits to the public are both immediate and far-reaching: Not
only are most of the live recordings free, but this also has the effect of
increasing the total number of musicians by encouraging live musical performances,
as opposed to spinning discs in nightclubs. Just as importantly, it
has the effect of cutting out the middleman, the huge corporations that impose
their "corporate tax" on everyone else to benefit no one except themselves.
There is another way to change the law: Mass Disobedience. Gandhi led India to freedom from British rule using this tactic. Marijuana use was decriminalized in many states in the 1970s because of mass disobedience to the laws.
When the legal system is corrupt, using legal means to change the system may not be sufficient. We need to call on all of our resources, the whole repertoire from lobbying to political organizing to protesting to encouraging mass disobedience. Any other response is self-crippling.
I agree with you that the varying access times in the memory hierarchy could not change the asymptotic scaling behavior of an algorithm, but I can see the previous poster's point as well (although it is not precisely stated): As the data size grows larger than the L1->L2->RAM capacities, if we consider the leading scaling term K*N^M, although M will remain constant,
the factor K will increase stepwise, with the increase at the RAM/Virtual boundary, for example, being on the order of 10E6 (in line with the ratio formulation you have suggested). Thus, over a finite range of the data size N, the algorithm's scaling behavior may actually be better modeled by a polynomial with leading term N^(M+L) rather than N^M, where L is some positive number. Of course, as N->infinity, this piecewise approximation would become increasingly inaccurate.
Sadly, you seem to think that the killing is done for you, to protect you personally. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the world continues to progress along the lines you seem to favor, when your time comes, when find the courage to stand up for your individual freedoms against the tyranny of the powerful, you will be killed just as mercilessly as the ones that came before you.
I have looked for this information as well, and while I expect it is available
online somewhere, it is not easily located. I searched the the EFF
site, but the voting records are either not there or not easily found. Perhaps
this is not surprising, since the EFF is a lobbying organization that needs
to maintain good relations with the congressmembers and their staff in order
to remain effective. What is needed is a more radical branch of the
digital free speech movement that identifies and campaigns for sympathetic
congressman and congressional candidates, and also actively campaigns against
politicans who have shown themselves to be the lackeys and prostitutes of
industry.
Slashdot, while a great resource for staying informed, is not a very useful
organizing tool. What is needed is an online organizing resource that
is more politically active and more radicalized than EFF, a supplement to
the EFF modeled along the lines of Sinn Fein vs. IRA militants. Sladly,
Slashdot is not sufficient, as we all too quickly move on to the new cool
toy/outrage du jour.
It is not globalization per se that people object to, it is the fact that the rules of globalization are being determined undemocratically, behind closed doors, to favor the interests of large corporations over the interests of small businesses and consumers.
A case in point is NAFTA. Trade for large corporations has been liberalized, but can Mexicans freely emigrate to the US? Can you legally bring Mexican pharmaceuticals into this country? Can Mexican doctors and lawyers compete with their US counterparts? Can the United Autoworkers organize Mexican autoworkers? Can US citizens vote for clean air and water standards in Mexico City or Tijuana? Of course, the answer is no to all of these questions.
Worse, yet, NAFTA has been used to challenge local laws in this country, directly interfering with our form of democracy.
You raise some very good issues. I agree that in some special
circumstances, the government may be, in effect, subsidizing its own research
efforts by giving up patents and copyrights. Companies that see commercial
potential in a research project will be motivated to compete, and this would
generally have the effect of driving down costs.
Also, I by no means believe that all Federally funded research is "corporate
welfare". Actually, under the right conditions, I think that funding
research is one of the most important functions of government. Under
the right conditions, research funding stimulates innovation, creates entire
new sectors of the economy, and has the effect of breaking down monopolies
that otherwise naturally arise in a capitalist system. By the "right
condtions", I mean an economic climate that encourages small business start-ups,
and a research policy that mandates the free exchange of ideas and scientific
knowledge. Unfortunately, the trend in recent times is towards restricting
information flow and encouraging corporate merger and consolidation. Both
of these trends are inherently anti-competitive, and under these conditions
government funding of research sometimes can be corrupted into a form of
corporate welfare.
Finally, I want to address your statement below:
I would agree that the government funds a lot of research, especially
in the form of grants to Universities in order advance technologies in certain
areas, but this is only a small portion of the research that goes on in
this country.
If we look at the broad category of total research and development,
you are actually correct in that industry spends more than government:
(Weird Table Warning - Circumvention device for slashdot lameness filter
protection. When numbers are lame, only lamers will
have numbers)
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, x, Fed Gov, x, Industry.
x, ($1 x 10E9), x,
(%), x, (%).
1960, x, 13.711, x, 65.02,
x, 32.94.
1980, x, 83.332, x, 36.04,
x, 37.13.
1999, x, 247.000, x, 26.66,
x, 68.55.
(Additional funding sources are Universities, Non-profits, and
Non-federal governments)
(Source: US Census Bureau,
Statistical Abstract of the U.S.:2000
(http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstra ct-us.html), Section 20,
Science and Technology
(http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec20. pdf) , pg 603)
It is interesting to note that the proportion of total R&D performed
by industry has increased dramtically over the past 40 years. It is
not that government funding for R&D has decreased (since 1980, at least,
in terms of real dollars government funding for R&D has increased by
34%),
rather, that corporate R&D spending has increased even more rapidly
than government funding.
However, if we look at funding for basic research (not including product
development costs and applied research), we see that the federal government
still outspends industry:
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, FedGov, Industry, Univ.,
Nonprofit, NonFed Gov
x, ($1 x 10E9),
(%), x, (%), x, (%)
x, (%), x, (%).
1993 x, 28.754, x, 57.1,
x, 24.8 x, 7.9 x,
6.9, x, 3.3.
2000 x, 47.903, x, 48.7,
x, 33.9 x, 7.7 x,
7.0, x, 2.8.
Proportionally, corporate funding of all basic research is increasing,
but is still significantly less than federal funding.
Finally, it is interesting to look at which institutions are receiving
the funding for basic research:
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, FedGov, Industry, Univ.,
Nonprofit.
x, ($1 x 10E9),
(%), x, (%), x, (%), x, (%).
1993 x, 28.754, x, 9.12
x,24.1 x, 57.8 x, 9.1.
2000 x, 47.903, x, 7.36
x,33.6 x, 49.0 x, 10.1.
(Source for the previous table: National Science Foundation,
National Patterns
of R&D Resources: 2000 Data Updatetable 2A
Universities (and to a lesser extent, government labs) have been steadily
losing their share of the total. Not surprising, as corporations tend
to fund research internally.
Just to give you a clearer idea on how patents and other so-called "intellectual property" rights are assigned, in the projects that I lead the federal funding agency retains absolutely no rights to any patents or copyrights that result from the research. All patents and copyrights that result from my research are jointly held by me and the university that employs me. This is typical of government funded research performed at universities and associated non-profit institutions.
I believe the situation is somewhat different at the government labs, such as ORNL, LANL and ARL, where the government may very well retain an interest in resulting patents and copyrights, but I do not know the details for those situations.
I take it you are trying to imply that, since corporations are responsbile for funding the greatest amount of "innovation", their strong support of the current patent laws is justifiable based on a valid economic interest in getting a fair return on their investment, and this in turn supplies the incentive for continued funding of research.
One problem with this view is that the premise is flawed: in the US, the federal government, not corporations, are the source of the vast majority of research funding. Corporations often leverage the reuslts of this research into proprietary form, so that, in effect, government research funding oftentimes constititutes a form of "corporate welfare".
( Unless you are using the term "innovation" in the sense commonly attributed to MicroSoft, i.e stealing ideas.)
On the contrary, in the unlikely event I would expose myself to such a possibility, I would hopefully come prepared, so I would pray that the defenders of the corrupted system are not there to witness my response.
Besides, in many situations, such as the recent G8 protests in Genoa or notable recent incidents in LA and NY, the thugs cornering your ass in a dark corner *are* the police.
If you are in a similar situation, is that really your planned response, to pray for police intervention? I hope you have a "plan B"!
(Run like hell works for me;-)
To all of those making the naive assertion that "Sklyarov is accused of breaking the law, therefor he must stand trial": Time to open your eyes to see beyond the black and white illusion of idealized justice. Justice is for sale in this country, to the highest bidder and to those with the political muscle.
Consider the selective enforcement of the "victimless" crimes (drugs, gambling, sexual proscriptions), tax laws and copyright laws (both skewed to favor the corporate interests): certainly the vast majority of Americans are "criminals" who have broken one or more of these laws, yet the prosecution falls overwhelmingly on the poor and the politically impotent. Unless a strong grassroots movement arises to support him, Dmitry falls into the latter category (evil communist hacker). If, on the other hand, programmers, scientists, and academicians can organize and bare their collective political fangs, the charges will be dropped, and deservedly so.
We should not weaken our position unnecessarily with unrealistic illusionary concepts of idealized justice.
It's really not that difficult to understand. The "free source movement", at the grassroots level, is not an organization with well-defined goals, rather it is a cultural phenomenom driven as much by entertainment and education as by economics.
There exists "100000 mp3 frontends written in perl" on freshmeat.net because 1)it is more fun to run your own applications than somebody else's, 2)coding as an activity is intrinsically rewarding, 3)writing your own code is the most effective way to acquire programming skills, and 4)many people are inspired by the idealism inherent in the free source philosophy.
Any theory that attempts to explain the free source movement purely in terms of economics or contractual frameworks is sadly incomplete.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey now Rocky - It is a nested thread, don't forget to close your parenthesis. I was responding to the reply from "The Ultimate Badass"
(the_ultimate_badass@hotmail.com) on Sunday August 19, @04:37AM (#2174596)(User #450974 Info), not to the original study.
As an aside, although the term "Christian Fundamentalist" certainly doesn't apply to the original study performed in Japan, the term "neo-conservative" probably does, but in a different sense than it would in this country. From my faraway perspective here is the USA, I've been hearing a lot about the neo-conservative political movement in Japan that espouses a return to more traditional cultural values, and an end to the post-war cultural internationalization. One of the recent news stories I read mentioned a controversy over history textbooks that failed to mention the WWII atrocities committed by the Japanese military in CHina and Korea, creating an international incident. One of the hallmarks of this movement seems to be "we've apologized enough"... Perhaps the conclusions reached in this study (completely unjustified from the data) are a reflection of this political trend as well, although this is pure speculation on my part.
No, extermists are needed to make room for the moderates. The extremists are the ones who break new ground and lead the way for the rest of us to follow as far as we choose. They are necessary for any political movement, and usually end up as martyrs who are sacrificed in the end. Both factions are needed.
Raymond essay is disingenuous in that he evades the whole point of Kuhn and Stallman's essay. Kuhn and Stallman clearly are talking about freedom for the user. Raymond begs the question by addressing freedom for the programmer. Ultimately, which is the more important?
One delusion that some programmer's often operate under is that they are creating a work in isolation from everybody else's contributions. Most of what we leverage in our creative works has come to us for free, under the principles of academic freedom. In many ways, RMS has simply reformulated these principles into a binding form specific to computer software. I agree with his effort to eliminate the free riders that would attempt to appropriate the vast body of prior art for their own personal gain.
Interesting point you make, but I see it more as an issue of censoring the arts, and legislating what should be my personal choice as a parent. Yes, I have children, and my youngest son is sitting behind me right now playing Tribes 2 on the windows box. My choice, not yours or anyone else's.
Besides, creation of game content is something of a cottage industry, generally not undertaken by major corporations.
Do you have any actual *evidence* that "the Columbine tragedy prompted
a crackdown on delinquency and antisocial behaviour among teens", or
is that just your impression from watching too much Fox News?
The five years preceding 1999 showed a drop in crime statistics purely
because of broader social trends, particularly a general increase in prosperity,
plus a marked increase in police activity in troubled areas, such as South
Central LA. (Watts is now an armed police camp, inundated with social
workers.) (emphasis mine)
That's a lovely solution you envision for us. I suppose your vision
would be complete if the entire country became "an armed police camp". Crime
statistics would certainly drop then!
Legislating based on crime fighting leads to more oppressive society for
everyone. It works like this: 1) Mass media news organizations, lacking
journalistic integrity and in search of ratings, oversensationalizes crime
anecdotes, 2) Weak-minded people, unable to think for themselves and getting
all of their information from television, are frightened into thinking that
crime is on the rise. 3) Demagogue politicians, afraid to take on the risky
issues, pass legislation funding more police and more prisons, while simultaneously
creating whole new classes of "crime". 4) Criminalized general populace,
in fear of either being victimized or arrested, stay home at night and watch
more TV. 5) Return to 1).
This is a typical fascist neo-conservative attitude: less government for the holy corporations, more government for individuals and families. These rants, purporting concern for children, are actually just a thinly veiled attempt to ram the christian fundamentalist religious view down everyone else's throats. I take the opposite view: more government in the boardrooms, less government in our bedrooms and living rooms. If anything is going to cause a downhill slide into depravity and violence, it is the runaway power and arrogance of the major coporations of our time, subverting democracy, inhibiting scientific progress, and destroying families by exerting constant downwards pressure on our standard of living.
Some bands (Dave Matthews Band and Metallica come to mind immediately) do not discourage the taping of concerts (that said, some venues, most of which are owned in one way or another by some form of government discourage it.)
I knew that DMB is taper-friendly, but I didn't know that Metallica is taper-friendly. If that is true, then it sheds a different light on their anti-Napster outburst. My own personal ethic requires that I either buy the official releases of a taper-friendly band, or forgo listening to the music.
I am curious about the last part of your statement. Are you suggesting that governments somehow discourage taping of live music, even if the musicans allow it? Do you have some evidence of this, or could you provide examples? Interesting.
When you go to a concert, you're not really obtaining the use of IP. Each concert is different than others, especially if you're going to a concert by a great live-entertainer (changes to songs, jam sessions, etc.), but even if you're not, then there is the atmosphere, the collective experience of being with n other people who have an interest in the same music.
Good point on the "great live-entertainer". What I am calling the etree model works best for this type of musician, and probably encourages certain musical genres over others. Jam-rock, jazz, bluegrass, and free-rhyming rap music are all highly improvisational: each concert is unique, so there is greater incentive for the fan to attend live performances whenever possible, and a greater motivation to collect and trade recordings of each performance that cannot be attended. Even classical music is said to have been very improvisational in its original form, and has only ossified through repetition over a long period of time.
I agree that the collective experience is definitely part of the attraction. When engaged in an evolution vs. creationism "barroom debate" years ago, the creationist posed the question, "Oh yeah, so then explain why we humans like music?". I was taken aback, and I am afraid I let Sir Charles down that night. I pondered this question for quite a while, and (without devolving into a really long off-topic essay) realized the answer probably lies in the survival advantage obtained in encouraging bonding between members of the tribe, and the resultant selection pressure placed on the development of a superior "musical organ", similar to Chomsky's postulated language organ. That is why I believe we still find the collective musical experience so compelling.
Which brings me back to my point: the "superstar and nothing else" model, pushed on us by the recording industry and the rapidly conglomerating broadcast radio industry, has the effect of severely restricting our opportunity to partake in this compelling experience of enjoying live music. Small club venues have been under pressure for years, slowly dying off under pressure of police forces determined to close "drug dens" and "rave clubs", and zoned out of existence by the well-organized groups of religious zealots. The current model of music distribution greatly accelerates this destruction. When I was younger, I remember many concerts being held in local parks, on the county fairgrounds, in the city square, out on the beach, and in other public places. We had a great local band that would perform across the street from my childhood home, playing in their garage for large street parties. These types of events are far less frequent now, in my observation. Ask any local musician how easy it is to make a living playing music.
Using the file-sharing capabilities of the internet, we can bring the whole rotten system down, and replace it with one that will encourage more live performances, will support more musicians with a reasonable standard of living, and, in general, benefit everyone except the currently powerful recording and broadcast industries (and perhaps a handful of mostly undeserving "superstars"). Change may be slow, but I think it is inevitable, and it can't happen soon enough for me.
Well, on slashdot, where moderation points bear an inverse exponential relationship to posting order, and where text blurbs are the equivalent of TV sound bites, I am sure I must be the last one viewing this topic, but if you happen to read this, thank you for your thought-provoking reply.
How many napster users? Between 10E7 and 10E8, from the reported estimates, and the mass disobedience is still occurring, only shifted to gnutella and offshore napsters. How many users of these file sharing services will ever be guiled by the corporate IP propaganda? Also, how much longer before politicians begin to feel the grassroots heat from these constituents? All that is required is some staying power, and a quick put-down of the bleeding-heart neoconservatives whining about the so-called "rights" of the wealthy corporations.
As to what constitutes a "mass" movement, think in terms of critical mass. In the short term, critical mass has already been reached - witness the self-destructive frenzied overreaction of the RIAA. In the medium term, the number needs to be sufficient to cause elected representatives to fear losing their jobs. In the long term, the number needs to be sufficient to win the hearts and sympathies of a majority of those who will be taking the reins of power in the future. In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised to see the current system collapse of its own weight: the natural sense of human justice and the economic forces are ultimately on our side
That is a very insightful and useful distinction, contrasting artists and entertainers, thank you. I think there is one quality that real artists have that entertainers lack: honesty, pure raw honesty that manifests itself as integrity in their art. Entertainers usually lack this quality to varying degrees, as they are more worried about what they think might please their fans, and thereby fill their coffers.
Possibly, arguably, online music trading affects the sales a handful of fatcat "stars", like Madonna and Don Henley and Britney Spears and those Metallica guys. I think it actually helps these people, by exposing their music to a wider audience. I also think that the demise of the major music distributors would help these stars, by returning a larger proportion of profits to them, but let's say for the sake of argument that online music trading "hurts" these people. Balance that harm against the harm done to everyone else, the consumers, and yes, the harm done to thousands of struggling artists who can't get a big recording contract, not because they're not good enough, but because they can't break past the corporate gatekeepers. Face it, there is a near monopoly on music distribution in this country, and it is hurting the public, the state of the arts, and most of the real artists. Britney Spears doesn't want to compete with a truly vibrant music scene, with bands playing around every corner; who would listen to her, then?
Part of the problem is that live music is being unnecessarily restricted in this country. When is the last time you attended a major concert, and you weren't threatened with a body cavity search, charged outrageous prices for parking, prevented from bringing any kind of refreshments, and smacked in the face with extremely predatory ticket prices and concession prices. Smaller, competing music venues are continually threatened and shut down, either by monopolistic action by mega-corporations such as Clear Channel, or under the guise of draconian drug laws. Free hint: that is how monopolies operate. Another free hint: the artists get only a tiny fraction of this money. Final hint: with the advent of the internet, the services of these big music distributors are no longer required.
Sorry, this is a cultural war, and somebody is going to get hurt either way. You seem to be into self-flagellation, by mouthing the politically correct line. You should learn to stand up for your own rights, instead of trading your own real rights in favor of the legally fictitious rights of Madonna and the like. Get a sense of proportion.
What you fail to realize that the copyright laws, in their present form, are stealing off of you and me and everyone else. Copyright is supposed to encourage the useful arts and sciences for the benefit of the public . It is clear that the copyright laws of today are written not to benefit the public, but to preserve the excessive profits of a few major corporations. Disobedience of unjust laws is not only justified, it is our duty as citizens.
Current copyright law doesn't even benefit the artists. There is much less live music in this country than there was 30 years ago, before the wave of corporate mega-mergers hit in the music industry. The etree model of music distribution is preferable to the copyright-heavy oligopolic distribution model we have today. It works like this: Musicians derive their income chiefly from live performances. In turn, they allow their fans to record the live performances for free, and trade the recordings for non-commercial use only. The recordings serve to generate a larger following, so demand for live musical performances rises, and the venues are always filled. The Grateful Dead outearned Micheal Jackson in his heydey using this approach. Today, the model is being increasingly used, and there are hundreds of taper-friendly bands . The benefits to the public are both immediate and far-reaching: Not only are most of the live recordings free, but this also has the effect of increasing the total number of musicians by encouraging live musical performances, as opposed to spinning discs in nightclubs. Just as importantly, it has the effect of cutting out the middleman, the huge corporations that impose their "corporate tax" on everyone else to benefit no one except themselves.
There is another way to change the law: Mass Disobedience. Gandhi led India to freedom from British rule using this tactic. Marijuana use was decriminalized in many states in the 1970s because of mass disobedience to the laws. When the legal system is corrupt, using legal means to change the system may not be sufficient. We need to call on all of our resources, the whole repertoire from lobbying to political organizing to protesting to encouraging mass disobedience. Any other response is self-crippling.
I agree with you that the varying access times in the memory hierarchy could not change the asymptotic scaling behavior of an algorithm, but I can see the previous poster's point as well (although it is not precisely stated): As the data size grows larger than the L1->L2->RAM capacities, if we consider the leading scaling term K*N^M, although M will remain constant, the factor K will increase stepwise, with the increase at the RAM/Virtual boundary, for example, being on the order of 10E6 (in line with the ratio formulation you have suggested). Thus, over a finite range of the data size N, the algorithm's scaling behavior may actually be better modeled by a polynomial with leading term N^(M+L) rather than N^M, where L is some positive number. Of course, as N->infinity, this piecewise approximation would become increasingly inaccurate.
Sadly, you seem to think that the killing is done for you, to protect you personally. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the world continues to progress along the lines you seem to favor, when your time comes, when find the courage to stand up for your individual freedoms against the tyranny of the powerful, you will be killed just as mercilessly as the ones that came before you.
I have looked for this information as well, and while I expect it is available online somewhere, it is not easily located. I searched the the EFF site, but the voting records are either not there or not easily found. Perhaps this is not surprising, since the EFF is a lobbying organization that needs to maintain good relations with the congressmembers and their staff in order to remain effective. What is needed is a more radical branch of the digital free speech movement that identifies and campaigns for sympathetic congressman and congressional candidates, and also actively campaigns against politicans who have shown themselves to be the lackeys and prostitutes of industry.
Slashdot, while a great resource for staying informed, is not a very useful organizing tool. What is needed is an online organizing resource that is more politically active and more radicalized than EFF, a supplement to the EFF modeled along the lines of Sinn Fein vs. IRA militants. Sladly, Slashdot is not sufficient, as we all too quickly move on to the new cool toy/outrage du jour.
It is not globalization per se that people object to, it is the fact that the rules of globalization are being determined undemocratically, behind closed doors, to favor the interests of large corporations over the interests of small businesses and consumers. A case in point is NAFTA. Trade for large corporations has been liberalized, but can Mexicans freely emigrate to the US? Can you legally bring Mexican pharmaceuticals into this country? Can Mexican doctors and lawyers compete with their US counterparts? Can the United Autoworkers organize Mexican autoworkers? Can US citizens vote for clean air and water standards in Mexico City or Tijuana? Of course, the answer is no to all of these questions. Worse, yet, NAFTA has been used to challenge local laws in this country, directly interfering with our form of democracy.
You raise some very good issues. I agree that in some special circumstances, the government may be, in effect, subsidizing its own research efforts by giving up patents and copyrights. Companies that see commercial potential in a research project will be motivated to compete, and this would generally have the effect of driving down costs.
a ct-us.html), . pdf) , pg 603)
Also, I by no means believe that all Federally funded research is "corporate welfare". Actually, under the right conditions, I think that funding research is one of the most important functions of government. Under the right conditions, research funding stimulates innovation, creates entire new sectors of the economy, and has the effect of breaking down monopolies that otherwise naturally arise in a capitalist system. By the "right condtions", I mean an economic climate that encourages small business start-ups, and a research policy that mandates the free exchange of ideas and scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, the trend in recent times is towards restricting information flow and encouraging corporate merger and consolidation. Both of these trends are inherently anti-competitive, and under these conditions government funding of research sometimes can be corrupted into a form of corporate welfare.
Finally, I want to address your statement below:
I would agree that the government funds a lot of research, especially in the form of grants to Universities in order advance technologies in certain areas, but this is only a small portion of the research that goes on in this country.
If we look at the broad category of total research and development, you are actually correct in that industry spends more than government:
(Weird Table Warning - Circumvention device for slashdot lameness filter protection. When numbers are lame, only lamers will have numbers)
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, x, Fed Gov, x, Industry.
x, ($1 x 10E9), x, (%), x, (%).
1960, x, 13.711, x, 65.02, x, 32.94.
1980, x, 83.332, x, 36.04, x, 37.13.
1999, x, 247.000, x, 26.66, x, 68.55.
(Additional funding sources are Universities, Non-profits, and Non-federal governments)
(Source: US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the U.S.:2000 (http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstr
Section 20, Science and Technology (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec20
It is interesting to note that the proportion of total R&D performed by industry has increased dramtically over the past 40 years. It is not that government funding for R&D has decreased (since 1980, at least, in terms of real dollars government funding for R&D has increased by 34%),
rather, that corporate R&D spending has increased even more rapidly than government funding.
However, if we look at funding for basic research (not including product development costs and applied research), we see that the federal government still outspends industry:
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, FedGov, Industry, Univ., Nonprofit, NonFed Gov
x, ($1 x 10E9), (%), x, (%), x, (%) x, (%), x, (%).
1993 x, 28.754, x, 57.1, x, 24.8 x, 7.9 x, 6.9, x, 3.3.
2000 x, 47.903, x, 48.7, x, 33.9 x, 7.7 x, 7.0, x, 2.8.
Proportionally, corporate funding of all basic research is increasing, but is still significantly less than federal funding.
Finally, it is interesting to look at which institutions are receiving the funding for basic research:
(Note dollar amounts are not adjusted for inflation)
Year, x, Total R&D, FedGov, Industry, Univ., Nonprofit.
x, ($1 x 10E9), (%), x, (%), x, (%), x, (%).
1993 x, 28.754, x, 9.12 x,24.1 x, 57.8 x, 9.1.
2000 x, 47.903, x, 7.36 x,33.6 x, 49.0 x, 10.1.
(Source for the previous table: National Science Foundation,
National Patterns of R&D Resources: 2000 Data Update table 2A
Universities (and to a lesser extent, government labs) have been steadily losing their share of the total. Not surprising, as corporations tend to fund research internally.
Well said, thank you.
May you be modded up to 5, Funny.
Just to give you a clearer idea on how patents and other so-called "intellectual property" rights are assigned, in the projects that I lead the federal funding agency retains absolutely no rights to any patents or copyrights that result from the research. All patents and copyrights that result from my research are jointly held by me and the university that employs me. This is typical of government funded research performed at universities and associated non-profit institutions.
I believe the situation is somewhat different at the government labs, such as ORNL, LANL and ARL, where the government may very well retain an interest in resulting patents and copyrights, but I do not know the details for those situations.
I take it you are trying to imply that, since corporations are responsbile for funding the greatest amount of "innovation", their strong support of the current patent laws is justifiable based on a valid economic interest in getting a fair return on their investment, and this in turn supplies the incentive for continued funding of research.
One problem with this view is that the premise is flawed: in the US, the federal government, not corporations, are the source of the vast majority of research funding. Corporations often leverage the reuslts of this research into proprietary form, so that, in effect, government research funding oftentimes constititutes a form of "corporate welfare".
( Unless you are using the term "innovation" in the sense commonly attributed to MicroSoft, i.e stealing ideas.)
On the contrary, in the unlikely event I would expose myself to such a possibility, I would hopefully come prepared, so I would pray that the defenders of the corrupted system are not there to witness my response. Besides, in many situations, such as the recent G8 protests in Genoa or notable recent incidents in LA and NY, the thugs cornering your ass in a dark corner *are* the police. If you are in a similar situation, is that really your planned response, to pray for police intervention? I hope you have a "plan B"! (Run like hell works for me ;-)
To all of those making the naive assertion that "Sklyarov is accused of breaking the law, therefor he must stand trial": Time to open your eyes to see beyond the black and white illusion of idealized justice. Justice is for sale in this country, to the highest bidder and to those with the political muscle. Consider the selective enforcement of the "victimless" crimes (drugs, gambling, sexual proscriptions), tax laws and copyright laws (both skewed to favor the corporate interests): certainly the vast majority of Americans are "criminals" who have broken one or more of these laws, yet the prosecution falls overwhelmingly on the poor and the politically impotent. Unless a strong grassroots movement arises to support him, Dmitry falls into the latter category (evil communist hacker). If, on the other hand, programmers, scientists, and academicians can organize and bare their collective political fangs, the charges will be dropped, and deservedly so. We should not weaken our position unnecessarily with unrealistic illusionary concepts of idealized justice.
It's really not that difficult to understand. The "free source movement", at the grassroots level, is not an organization with well-defined goals, rather it is a cultural phenomenom driven as much by entertainment and education as by economics. There exists "100000 mp3 frontends written in perl" on freshmeat.net because 1)it is more fun to run your own applications than somebody else's, 2)coding as an activity is intrinsically rewarding, 3)writing your own code is the most effective way to acquire programming skills, and 4)many people are inspired by the idealism inherent in the free source philosophy. Any theory that attempts to explain the free source movement purely in terms of economics or contractual frameworks is sadly incomplete.
The first sale doctrine is codified in section 109(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 109(a)