It depends on what the 99.8% indicates. If 99.8% of the output molecules in a single test return the same value, you can disregard the 0.2% dissenting molecules. After all, a standard transistor is considered 'on' even if it not at its maximum saturation. The same standard could be applied to the DNA computer; if more than, say, 80% of the output molecules return T, you can be sure that T is the answer.
If, on the other hand, 99.8% indicates the percentage of all tests that return a correct value, you have a different kind of problem.
Well, then, I propose we start an Internet Rant Project. We'll setup a wiki and everyone on the internet can together compose a giant rant that everyone can see.
Roads decay. Skyscrapers fall down--no one can deny this now. Things outlive their usefulness--would you say a manufactured toothbrush is removed PERMANENTLY from the cycle? Our entire planet thrives on a system of RECLAMATION--this is why living things must die and become material for new living things. This is why New Jersey recycles;-).
You seem to contradict your own argument: you say that we live in a closed system, but that this system needs resources from the outside to grow or survive. You clearly cannot keep both these claims.
You say that we must continue collecting resources because there is an ever-increasing need. If there were a water mining station on Mars right now, I might agree with you, especially since New Jersey is approaching a drought. But to say that in 20 years or 50 years our best means of getting materials for manufacturing will be little changed from that of the ancients is to underestimate our own abilities.
It seems to be that a civilization advanced enough to have continuous and safe access to a remote lunar/planetary/asteroid station should be able to get materials in other ways than mining, i.e. through synthetic production. There's no reason to say that this kind of mooching off of the universe is necessary for our continued exploration of space. We are essentially planning to continue conventional earth mining on other bodies, only changing the process where it is necessary. We only want to consider this idea because it seems like our only choice now, from our current knowledge, but to Renaissance Europeans, the only way to Asia was east.
Isn't a broadcaster required by the FCC to broadcast an identification of the station? And isn't it easier to do this with a non-intrusive symbol than by announcing "This is NBC" every ten minutes?
Freedom needs not be enforced because it is a natural law. Only property rights need be enforced because they are unnatural, and that is what FS seeks to get rid of. If copyright law were abolished tomorrow, free software would still exists, but it would need even less enforcement than before. At the same time, proprietary software would become ludicrous. It would be impossible to make sure that everyone who has a copy of the software did pay for it--even now they're having a tough time dealing with this problem, and Microsoft is resorting to pure propaganda.
and, besides, Free software is NOT about getting rid of ownership:
...
the aim of Free software is more to improve security, reliability, knowledge, efficiency, etc. than to deal with ownership. ownership is a side-effect.
I'm sorry, you're a little mixed up you you're terminology. You actually described the aim of Open Source Software. The aim of Free Software is the opposite of what you said: it is all about ownership, or lack thereof; security, reliability, knowledge, and efficiency are the side effects (or rather, the results--both intentional and coincidental).
Communism is all about freedom. Communism is about getting rid of ownership, so is Free software.
Yes, but Communism works in a very centralized way (in effect, EVERYONE owns the resources, which are pooled together before being re-distributed) while FS works in a completely de-centralized way (basically, no one owns any resources, except the original author because of US copyright law--but even she can't do anything about software already modified by other people). Granted, the FSF doesn't always promote this decentralization, as they encourage FS programmers to give them the copyright to new FS, but at least in theory FS is not owned by any one "dictator" or party.
But to maintain this freedom the freedom must be enforced! This is what the sovjet union did, they insisted that people didn't own, otherwise people would be enslaved by the owners again. This is also what the Free software movement is all about.
No, free software doesn't enforce anything--some free software you can make into proprietary software and have done nothing wrong. It is only copyleft and copylefted software that is Communist in this way. Even then the force is much more agreable than that of the Soviets. While the Soviets in general targetted all non-conformers, copyleft only targets those who want to use or modify FS, and even then it is more of a defence then an attack.
Open Sourcers think that success means dominance. The more Web Servers that use Apache, the better the job we're doing.
Free Softwarers think that success means adherance to doctrine (i.e. the GPL). If the GPL holds up in court, and copyleft protects free software, our goal is accomplished.
Free Software can exist whether or not Proprietary Software does. Obviously a lot of people would like to see OS/FS beat MS in a duel, but this is totally irrelevent to FS's ideals, albeit a huge ego-feeder.
>Where, right now, let's say there are 10 text editors, each has a group of 3 people working on it. If we were to evaluate and eliminate the worthless projects (as an organization would do) we can better pool our resources together so we can have 2 maybe 3 text editors, each with 10 to 15 people working on them.
If there are 10 text editors, then each is different, and if each is different, then each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, there is a reason why there are so many; people use them for different things and with different tastes.
OS/FS doesn't need a leader. Did RMS need someone to tell him to disclose Emacs source code? No, he was a smart man, he figured it out for himself. What he _did_ need was inspiration, that coming from his financial situation and his experiences at MIT. This is what the "unenlightened public" and most of the OS/FS community is lacking, and this is why there is a call for a leader, someone to exactly define the movement's purpose. But the real need is not of a leader, but of an educator. We (I use the word very carefully) need someone to spread the meaning of OS/FS. We who have already known the meaning need no leader; we already have the holy bible.
>do the Open Source/Free Software movement need a 'leadership' to better fight back new stuff from Redmond?
First, the Open Source/Free Software movement cannot have a single leader or group of like-minded leaders because it is in fact divided into two different movements, the Open Source movement and the Free Software movement, whose goals and ideals are very different.
Second, the Free Software movement already has a leader; it's the GNU GPL. That single document contains all the properties necessary to lead the movement: inspiration, revelation, protection, legal standing.
>We need leaders capable of stating our case rationally, without appeals to ideals and morals that do not exist in society at large.
But it _is_ idealistic.
>While Mr. Stallman has done a great deal for Open Source through FSF and the GNU project, his positions are too strident for mainstream society to accept.
1) I don't believe Richard Stallman has _ever_ done anything for Open Source. He has done everything for Free Software.
2) Mainstream society doesn't have to accept them, just the misguided idealists you talk about.
>I'd suggest that (if they are willing) Ken Thompson, Linus Torvalds, Matthias Ettrich, and Miguel di Icaza (sp?) represent us.
Good. Just make sure you define "us" as "the few 'Open Source' pro-business advocates." There are a lot of people in the Open Source movement who STRONGLY disagree with some of those people's views of the movement.
>> The GPL, as I understand it, doesn't require you to do anything until you make modifications to GPL code, or use it in your own software, in which case it becomes a virus, requiring you to release the entire program containing the "free" code to the public under the same viral, "free" license.
It is not a virus. Viri are not self-replicating--the GPL is:-)
Seriously, though, what's wrong with free software? Would you rather give the freedom to use the software to anyone who wants it or give AOL the discression to decide who can see the source?
>> As mentioned many times before, the "free" software movement is a hypocritical joke, severely in need of a clue beating.
What kind of clue beating? With the candlestick? In the library? I don't know what hypocritical means, but I think AOL is more of a joke than GNU.
Re:A left and a right... the GPL takes it, though!
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 1
Oh yes, AOL is getting a free OS with free software and Steve Case thanks the Open Source god who magically provides him with free labor.
The real beauty of this blackboard might not be the representation of free speech, but rather what kind of statements can be formulated and agreed upon by an entire town. At first everyone will want to write what they want on the blackboard. However, once the blackboard is filled people will start looking at what they have written, trying to combine similar statements to save space. Erasing words you don't like will actually improve the message of the board, making it more closely match the entire town's opinions. Eventually the board will reach a state of stability, with few people changing it, because everyone will have had their turn at free expression and refined their message.
This board will create a polarization of the town. Maybe the entire town, if the citizens are generally like-minded, will agree on a certain set of statements or philosophy to depict on the board. On the other hand, the writings might divide themselves into distinct groups, each of which will battle for its own voice. However, I don't think these groups will erase their ennemy's writings and replace them with their own. They will find it more effective to write their opposing viewpoints next to their ennemies' writings. Counter-arguments are always most effective when contrasted with their opposing statements. If they stood alone, having erased the opposition, they would be subject to their own criticism.
Anyway, back to free speech. I only partly see how this board encourages free speech. Obviously, everyone can add thier own opinion or attitude to the board--at least, everyone who gets to the board before it fills. However, the ability of other people to erase the work of free speakers does not seem to go with free speech. The right to burn books opposed to your viewpoint is not included in your right to free speech. The erasure of messages on the board, whether to attempt to "wipe out" that argument or simply to free some space, seems to indicate that it is all right to burn your opponents books.
In the end, I think this board will be more of a collaborative tool for the town than a free speech community board. However, the blackboard will still be able to act as a monument to free speech because it does have the basic qualities of an open democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully, if this does turn out to be the deal, Microsoft will kindly remember not to include any Windows-only hardware in the computers.
It depends on what the 99.8% indicates. If 99.8% of the output molecules in a single test return the same value, you can disregard the 0.2% dissenting molecules. After all, a standard transistor is considered 'on' even if it not at its maximum saturation. The same standard could be applied to the DNA computer; if more than, say, 80% of the output molecules return T, you can be sure that T is the answer.
If, on the other hand, 99.8% indicates the percentage of all tests that return a correct value, you have a different kind of problem.
Heh, maybe this accuracy problem can be turned to our advantage by making it easier to generate random numbers.
Well, then, I propose we start an Internet Rant Project. We'll setup a wiki and everyone on the internet can together compose a giant rant that everyone can see.
;-)
Indeed.
Roads decay. Skyscrapers fall down--no one can deny this now. Things outlive their usefulness--would you say a manufactured toothbrush is removed PERMANENTLY from the cycle? Our entire planet thrives on a system of RECLAMATION--this is why living things must die and become material for new living things. This is why New Jersey recycles ;-).
You seem to contradict your own argument: you say that we live in a closed system, but that this system needs resources from the outside to grow or survive. You clearly cannot keep both these claims.
You say that we must continue collecting resources because there is an ever-increasing need. If there were a water mining station on Mars right now, I might agree with you, especially since New Jersey is approaching a drought. But to say that in 20 years or 50 years our best means of getting materials for manufacturing will be little changed from that of the ancients is to underestimate our own abilities.
It seems to be that a civilization advanced enough to have continuous and safe access to a remote lunar/planetary/asteroid station should be able to get materials in other ways than mining, i.e. through synthetic production. There's no reason to say that this kind of mooching off of the universe is necessary for our continued exploration of space. We are essentially planning to continue conventional earth mining on other bodies, only changing the process where it is necessary. We only want to consider this idea because it seems like our only choice now, from our current knowledge, but to Renaissance Europeans, the only way to Asia was east.
Isn't a broadcaster required by the FCC to broadcast an identification of the station? And isn't it easier to do this with a non-intrusive symbol than by announcing "This is NBC" every ten minutes?
If this isn't anti-competitive, I don't know what is.
There's an easy way to avoid this fate.
http://www.nader.org/
Freedom needs not be enforced because it is a natural law. Only property rights need be enforced because they are unnatural, and that is what FS seeks to get rid of. If copyright law were abolished tomorrow, free software would still exists, but it would need even less enforcement than before. At the same time, proprietary software would become ludicrous. It would be impossible to make sure that everyone who has a copy of the software did pay for it--even now they're having a tough time dealing with this problem, and Microsoft is resorting to pure propaganda.
Standards are the most misguided form of flattery.
I'm sorry, you're a little mixed up you you're terminology. You actually described the aim of Open Source Software. The aim of Free Software is the opposite of what you said: it is all about ownership, or lack thereof; security, reliability, knowledge, and efficiency are the side effects (or rather, the results--both intentional and coincidental).
Just read Why Software Should Not Have Owners and/or Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' and you'll see.
Yes, but Communism works in a very centralized way (in effect, EVERYONE owns the resources, which are pooled together before being re-distributed) while FS works in a completely de-centralized way (basically, no one owns any resources, except the original author because of US copyright law--but even she can't do anything about software already modified by other people). Granted, the FSF doesn't always promote this decentralization, as they encourage FS programmers to give them the copyright to new FS, but at least in theory FS is not owned by any one "dictator" or party.
No, free software doesn't enforce anything--some free software you can make into proprietary software and have done nothing wrong. It is only copyleft and copylefted software that is Communist in this way. Even then the force is much more agreable than that of the Soviets. While the Soviets in general targetted all non-conformers, copyleft only targets those who want to use or modify FS, and even then it is more of a defence then an attack.
moon-buggy is the best game ever!
>What the OSS and Free Software crowd are looking for out there is basically a revolution.
:-)
I'm not looking for a revolution.
I think FS is just looking to spread silently, and as long as people understand FS's goals, RMS and many FSers will be happy.
>we had a leader who was there because he was the strongest (ergo, he could tell everyone else what to do), and everyone listened to him.
...until he taxed us for tea and we went to war with him
>Open source (or at least free software) is all about giving up ownership to benefit the community.
Open Source is about giving up ownership to benefit Netscape, no?
Here's the deal:
Open Source and Free Software both want success.
Open Sourcers think that success means dominance. The more Web Servers that use Apache, the better the job we're doing.
Free Softwarers think that success means adherance to doctrine (i.e. the GPL). If the GPL holds up in court, and copyleft protects free software, our goal is accomplished.
Free Software can exist whether or not Proprietary Software does. Obviously a lot of people would like to see OS/FS beat MS in a duel, but this is totally irrelevent to FS's ideals, albeit a huge ego-feeder.
>Where, right now, let's say there are 10 text editors, each has a group of 3 people working on it. If we were to evaluate and eliminate the worthless projects (as an organization would do) we can better pool our resources together so we can have 2 maybe 3 text editors, each with 10 to 15 people working on them.
If there are 10 text editors, then each is different, and if each is different, then each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, there is a reason why there are so many; people use them for different things and with different tastes.
OS/FS doesn't need a leader. Did RMS need someone to tell him to disclose Emacs source code? No, he was a smart man, he figured it out for himself. What he _did_ need was inspiration, that coming from his financial situation and his experiences at MIT. This is what the "unenlightened public" and most of the OS/FS community is lacking, and this is why there is a call for a leader, someone to exactly define the movement's purpose. But the real need is not of a leader, but of an educator. We (I use the word very carefully) need someone to spread the meaning of OS/FS. We who have already known the meaning need no leader; we already have the holy bible.
>do the Open Source/Free Software movement need a 'leadership' to better fight back new stuff from Redmond?
First, the Open Source/Free Software movement cannot have a single leader or group of like-minded leaders because it is in fact divided into two different movements, the Open Source movement and the Free Software movement, whose goals and ideals are very different.
Second, the Free Software movement already has a leader; it's the GNU GPL. That single document contains all the properties necessary to lead the movement: inspiration, revelation, protection, legal standing.
>We need leaders capable of stating our case rationally, without appeals to ideals and morals that do not exist in society at large.
But it _is_ idealistic.
>While Mr. Stallman has done a great deal for Open Source through FSF and the GNU project, his positions are too strident for mainstream society to accept.
1) I don't believe Richard Stallman has _ever_ done anything for Open Source. He has done everything for Free Software.
2) Mainstream society doesn't have to accept them, just the misguided idealists you talk about.
>I'd suggest that (if they are willing) Ken Thompson, Linus Torvalds, Matthias Ettrich, and Miguel di Icaza (sp?) represent us.
Good. Just make sure you define "us" as "the few 'Open Source' pro-business advocates." There are a lot of people in the Open Source movement who STRONGLY disagree with some of those people's views of the movement.
>> The GPL, as I understand it, doesn't require you to do anything until you make modifications to GPL code, or use it in your own software, in which case it becomes a virus, requiring you to release the entire program containing the "free" code to the public under the same viral, "free" license.
:-)
It is not a virus. Viri are not self-replicating--the GPL is
Seriously, though, what's wrong with free software? Would you rather give the freedom to use the software to anyone who wants it or give AOL the discression to decide who can see the source?
>> As mentioned many times before, the "free" software movement is a hypocritical joke, severely in need of a clue beating.
What kind of clue beating? With the candlestick? In the library? I don't know what hypocritical means, but I think AOL is more of a joke than GNU.
Oh yes, AOL is getting a free OS with free software and Steve Case thanks the Open Source god who magically provides him with free labor.
rant(){
The real beauty of this blackboard might not be the representation of free speech, but rather what kind of statements can be formulated and agreed upon by an entire town. At first everyone will want to write what they want on the blackboard. However, once the blackboard is filled people will start looking at what they have written, trying to combine similar statements to save space. Erasing words you don't like will actually improve the message of the board, making it more closely match the entire town's opinions. Eventually the board will reach a state of stability, with few people changing it, because everyone will have had their turn at free expression and refined their message.
This board will create a polarization of the town. Maybe the entire town, if the citizens are generally like-minded, will agree on a certain set of statements or philosophy to depict on the board. On the other hand, the writings might divide themselves into distinct groups, each of which will battle for its own voice. However, I don't think these groups will erase their ennemy's writings and replace them with their own. They will find it more effective to write their opposing viewpoints next to their ennemies' writings. Counter-arguments are always most effective when contrasted with their opposing statements. If they stood alone, having erased the opposition, they would be subject to their own criticism.
Anyway, back to free speech. I only partly see how this board encourages free speech. Obviously, everyone can add thier own opinion or attitude to the board--at least, everyone who gets to the board before it fills. However, the ability of other people to erase the work of free speakers does not seem to go with free speech. The right to burn books opposed to your viewpoint is not included in your right to free speech. The erasure of messages on the board, whether to attempt to "wipe out" that argument or simply to free some space, seems to indicate that it is all right to burn your opponents books.
In the end, I think this board will be more of a collaborative tool for the town than a free speech community board. However, the blackboard will still be able to act as a monument to free speech because it does have the basic qualities of an open democracy.
}
>> It will be like an analog version of Slashdot.
It'd be more like a physical version of Wiki.
Personally, I'd just use the blackboard to do math problems.