Regardless of Stallman's personal views, I tend to think the GPL itself ended up being a functional adaptation of the software market to restore competition. The result of it's effects wasn't to socialize software, but to restore what benefits competitive capitalism actually offers.
It is, and it's encrypted by a key that will only be printed inside the passport. This results in the details of your identity being hidden from all but those who can actually view the passport (provided the crypto is implemented correctly and with a sufficient key strength) - but it does nothing to prevent an equipped terrorist from identifying Americans.
Trusted Computing/DRM requires that vendors have control of the hardware if it's to be at all effective. Many critics recognize that TC/DRM is essentially taking ownership of such hardware away from the consumer and putting it in the hands of the vendor, even after the purchase has been made.
What better way to retain control of the hardware than to integrate it with the content it's intended to display, and then make it so cheap that it's disposable?
I don't block popups so much as a I hold them. When Firefox blocks a popup, it tells you - in a short margin at the top of the screen, or, depending on my settings, they pop under in a background tab.
The point is that in case I *do* want or need them, I know they're there, and I can bring them up selectively.
I use flashblock on flash ads for the same effect. if I want to play some flash, there's just one extra click. Very convenient.
I also have a javascript bookmarklet "page tamer" that I frankensteined out of several annoyance zapper bookmarklets. If animated gifs or oversealous embeds, colors, or plugins get my goat, one click takes them all out at once, leaving only the text I wanted to read. This gives me a chance to see how the page was intended to be viewed, so I don't miss anything, while giving me the power to focus on what I choose too, instantly.
So how much more information will exist by then? Is it growing faster than Google can index it? Think about how fast that much information came into being in the first place.
The GPL is designed to protect software freedom. Business and adoption concerns were secondary, if they were considered at all.
I used to be concerned about how popular GNU/Linux was. I thought it followed that development momentum followed popularity, and GNU/Linux had to be the standard. Now I realize that I just love the amount of freedom and development momentum the platform has already, *right now*, and I care less about world domination.
I'm sure there's quite a bit more "market share" to be had by GNU/Linux, but there's already plenty for me to and the community to thrive on. Apparently, it's also enough for a fairly robust business segment, as well. That's enough.
Business and user adoption is not the most important consideration to how "successful" an OS platform is. Try measuring it using the stick it was intended to be measured with.
"Our problem, however, was that we could not afford to work at guiding and creating Burning Man without being paid."
This comes straight from the horse's mouth. how do you argue with that?
"If you don't agree, then don't go."
Er, he's not. That's what he (Zawinski) is saying.
It's a shame that the abuses of a few end up ruining perfectly good artisitic opportunities for others.
I've had to realize, myself, that there is tons of hypocrisy at BM. It's not a "city" - we are not "citizens". We do not elect representatives or vote. We are not a democracy. Burning Man is a private event. Most of us may be participants (although the ratio is getting rather pronounced), but that just means we are consuming opportunities to interact in novel ways, rather than passive entertainment or art itself.
It's curious that, more recently, Burning Man is so busy encouraging the political worldview that the event nurtures to be spread back to the world, while it takes such strong measures to remain unnoticed by the world it's trying to effect.
Wait. So Google has bought an closed-protocol IM client that came with an image application developer (Picasa). Then they release an IM client based on an open IM protocol instead.
So this means they're going to buy a closed-protocol VOIP developer? So... they can release a VOIP app based on an incompatible open protocol that already exists (SIP)?
Perhaps Picasa'a IM client was a red herring - after all, they had this great image processing app, which is probably what they really wanted.
Skype, on the other hand, is a one-hit wonder. if you're not going to to buy the company for the VOIP app, there's nothing else worth having.
In this world of unmolested monopolies, cartels, and rampant corporate mergers, have we so lost sight of the benefits of competition that we *complain* when we see it? Are we really that brainwashed?
I've lost count of the numbers of times websites have executed some form of revenue generation "to cover bandwidth costs". It ranges from annoying advertising to a Paypal donation button, etc. It is true that bandwidth for popular sites gets to be the critical expense.
Now, with Bittorrent, we have a way to support those bandwidth costs without having to part with cash - or to worry about the site's *real* motives.
If the site's users provide the bandwidth, that's one less expense for a web site. Fewer expenses for a web site mean less pressure to sell advertising.
Taylor seems to want to make you think that just because you don't see most bugs in MS apps that are fixed pre-release, they didn't exist, having come pure and bug free from the mind of the programmer. Because OSS shows you these bugs, instead of hiding them from you in the development process, it must be "brittle". Just LOOK at all those bugs!
I tend to think the "If you don't like it, don't buy it" line is pretty valid. The world of content could USE a good pruging of profiteers. Contrary to what the Double-Click tells you, content won't disappear without DRM or advertising support. The mediasphere will simply be filled with the free content that is already overcrowding it.
All else being equal, DRMed content will lose to unrestricted content. And the advertising, if it isn't filtered out, will pay for the content that people like.
Oh, so you're saying that if I buy a monitor, instead of renting one from you, you'll stop releasing crappy hollywood movies in any format that my monitor can display it in?
Promise?
In the meantime, would you mind releasing ads in this format, too?:)
Fab Labs are USD$20,000 boxes of equipment that can be used, with an afternoon of training, to cook up many inventions, including basic electronics. This is the beginning of something that eventually might resemble a desktop nanofactory like this one proposed by Chris Phoenix of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
In short, the premise (open for debate, at present) is that personal fabricators ("PFs") in every home could do for patents what personal computers (PCs) in every home have done for copyright, when combined with the Internet. If the tools to innovate material things were distributed to non-commerical users, the amount of non-commercial innovation increases, whether we're talking about software or gizmos. For twenty years, incumbent comemrcial patents might dominate, but once they expire, openly-licensed patents could dominate through sheer numbers.
The popularity of open source licensing has largely solved the copyright problem; there are plentiful alternatives for those who insist on software freedom, and more are arriving daily. PFs could extend this to physical inventions, as well.
Huebner's choice of "major innovations" and patents as his measures of innovation just prove his bias is slanted toward the fact that innovation is decreasing because it's concentrating along with the wealth that results from it.
We are rebeling. We simply see little reason to resort to violence. Why change the system when you can simply ignore it to death with the right technology?
If all that's needed to keep bittorrent viable is a squeaky-clean developer to create a bt protocol client, I'm sure the market will provide. Hell, there are now plenty of "legitimate" corporations (Blizzard, for starters - who now employs Cohen) who have enough vested commerical interest in bt to fund such development, even if Cohen were forced out of what he started.
So, what you're saying is that if we give up non-free content, you'll stop the advertising?
Promise?
- As excellent as that sounds, I call bullshit. Having access to an audience - any audience - is more important than the content itself. If they have to make up content, advertisers will.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of Stallman's personal views, I tend to think the GPL itself ended up being a functional adaptation of the software market to restore competition. The result of it's effects wasn't to socialize software, but to restore what benefits competitive capitalism actually offers.
A proposal that doesn't involve enforcing features.
I'd download, transcode, index, and then *torrentize*, track, and seed the content. that might be worth paying $5-$10 a month for.
It is, and it's encrypted by a key that will only be printed inside the passport. This results in the details of your identity being hidden from all but those who can actually view the passport (provided the crypto is implemented correctly and with a sufficient key strength) - but it does nothing to prevent an equipped terrorist from identifying Americans.
Trusted Computing/DRM requires that vendors have control of the hardware if it's to be at all effective. Many critics recognize that TC/DRM is essentially taking ownership of such hardware away from the consumer and putting it in the hands of the vendor, even after the purchase has been made.
What better way to retain control of the hardware than to integrate it with the content it's intended to display, and then make it so cheap that it's disposable?
If Congress doesn't deliver a Broadcast Flag pronto, warns the letter, content producers will abandon free, over-the-air broadcast TV.
Promise?
I don't block popups so much as a I hold them.
When Firefox blocks a popup, it tells you - in a short margin at the top of the screen, or, depending on my settings, they pop under in a background tab.
The point is that in case I *do* want or need them, I know they're there, and I can bring them up selectively.
I use flashblock on flash ads for the same effect. if I want to play some flash, there's just one extra click. Very convenient.
I also have a javascript bookmarklet "page tamer" that I frankensteined out of several annoyance zapper bookmarklets. If animated gifs or oversealous embeds, colors, or plugins get my goat, one click takes them all out at once, leaving only the text I wanted to read. This gives me a chance to see how the page was intended to be viewed, so I don't miss anything, while giving me the power to focus on what I choose too, instantly.
300 years to index all the info extant *today*?
So how much more information will exist by then? Is it growing faster than Google can index it? Think about how fast that much information came into being in the first place.
What a silly question.
some variations:
Money isn't happiness, but poverty is misery. Misery loves company, and companies love misery...
For those late to the licensing meeting:
The GPL is designed to protect software freedom. Business and adoption concerns were secondary, if they were considered at all.
I used to be concerned about how popular GNU/Linux was. I thought it followed that development momentum followed popularity, and GNU/Linux had to be the standard. Now I realize that I just love the amount of freedom and development momentum the platform has already, *right now*, and I care less about world domination.
I'm sure there's quite a bit more "market share" to be had by GNU/Linux, but there's already plenty for me to and the community to thrive on. Apparently, it's also enough for a fairly robust business segment, as well. That's enough.
Business and user adoption is not the most important consideration to how "successful" an OS platform is. Try measuring it using the stick it was intended to be measured with.
Burning Man is NOT anarchy and has never claimed to be.
c ture.html
Neither has Zawinski. Stick to the point.
Burning Man is a (non-profit) corporation.
Non profit? try facts. It's an for-profit LLC that just happens to operates at break even, after making tons of art grants.
http://afterburn.burningman.com/04/financial_stru
"Our problem, however, was that we could not afford to work at guiding and creating Burning Man without being paid."
This comes straight from the horse's mouth. how do you argue with that?
"If you don't agree, then don't go."
Er, he's not. That's what he (Zawinski) is saying.
It's a shame that the abuses of a few end up ruining perfectly good artisitic opportunities for others.
I've had to realize, myself, that there is tons of hypocrisy at BM. It's not a "city" - we are not "citizens". We do not elect representatives or vote. We are not a democracy. Burning Man is a private event. Most of us may be participants (although the ratio is getting rather pronounced), but that just means we are consuming opportunities to interact in novel ways, rather than passive entertainment or art itself.
It's curious that, more recently, Burning Man is so busy encouraging the political worldview that the event nurtures to be spread back to the world, while it takes such strong measures to remain unnoticed by the world it's trying to effect.
Does it cost USD$226 ?
Wait. So Google has bought an closed-protocol IM client that came with an image application developer (Picasa). Then they release an IM client based on an open IM protocol instead.
So this means they're going to buy a closed-protocol VOIP developer? So... they can release a VOIP app based on an incompatible open protocol that already exists (SIP)?
Perhaps Picasa'a IM client was a red herring - after all, they had this great image processing app, which is probably what they really wanted.
Skype, on the other hand, is a one-hit wonder. if you're not going to to buy the company for the VOIP app, there's nothing else worth having.
Robert Hare is the same person who contributed to and appeared in the book and film http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=3" http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=3" >The Corporation, and seems to have been the central proponent of the film's main premise: "The corporation is the prototypical psychopath."
I wouldn't be surprised if the idea originated with him, since he seems pretty interested in pursuing various angles of it.
In this world of unmolested monopolies, cartels, and rampant corporate mergers, have we so lost sight of the benefits of competition that we *complain* when we see it? Are we really that brainwashed?
More than one person posts on Slashdot.
Some of these people think informaiton should be free. Another thinks completely differently, believing that holding some information privately is OK.
The conflict is between different people with different opinions, not between one person with differing opinions.
What's so unusual about that, and why is it people always think "typical slashdotters" always think alike?
I've lost count of the numbers of times websites have executed some form of revenue generation "to cover bandwidth costs". It ranges from annoying advertising to a Paypal donation button, etc. It is true that bandwidth for popular sites gets to be the critical expense.
Now, with Bittorrent, we have a way to support those bandwidth costs without having to part with cash - or to worry about the site's *real* motives.
If the site's users provide the bandwidth, that's one less expense for a web site. Fewer expenses for a web site mean less pressure to sell advertising.
Sounds good to me.
Does the model of proprietary application research, development, and usage serve the industry better?
Open source software was created to serve more than just "the industry". Business is not everything.
Translation: software has bugs.
Taylor seems to want to make you think that just because you don't see most bugs in MS apps that are fixed pre-release, they didn't exist, having come pure and bug free from the mind of the programmer. Because OSS shows you these bugs, instead of hiding them from you in the development process, it must be "brittle". Just LOOK at all those bugs!
A classic attack, long since rebutted.
I tend to think the "If you don't like it, don't buy it" line is pretty valid. The world of content could USE a good pruging of profiteers. Contrary to what the Double-Click tells you, content won't disappear without DRM or advertising support. The mediasphere will simply be filled with the free content that is already overcrowding it.
All else being equal, DRMed content will lose to unrestricted content. And the advertising, if it isn't filtered out, will pay for the content that people like.
Oh, so you're saying that if I buy a monitor, instead of renting one from you, you'll stop releasing crappy hollywood movies in any format that my monitor can display it in?
:)
Promise?
In the meantime, would you mind releasing ads in this format, too?
This reminds me of some speculation on the rate of innovation in reaction to the attention Neil Gershenfeld's Fab Labs have been getting.
Fab Labs are USD$20,000 boxes of equipment that can be used, with an afternoon of training, to cook up many inventions, including basic electronics. This is the beginning of something that eventually might resemble a desktop nanofactory like this one proposed by Chris Phoenix of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
In short, the premise (open for debate, at present) is that personal fabricators ("PFs") in every home could do for patents what personal computers (PCs) in every home have done for copyright, when combined with the Internet. If the tools to innovate material things were distributed to non-commerical users, the amount of non-commercial innovation increases, whether we're talking about software or gizmos. For twenty years, incumbent comemrcial patents might dominate, but once they expire, openly-licensed patents could dominate through sheer numbers.
The popularity of open source licensing has largely solved the copyright problem; there are plentiful alternatives for those who insist on software freedom, and more are arriving daily. PFs could extend this to physical inventions, as well.
Huebner's choice of "major innovations" and patents as his measures of innovation just prove his bias is slanted toward the fact that innovation is decreasing because it's concentrating along with the wealth that results from it.
We are rebeling. We simply see little reason to resort to violence. Why change the system when you can simply ignore it to death with the right technology?
If all that's needed to keep bittorrent viable is a squeaky-clean developer to create a bt protocol client, I'm sure the market will provide. Hell, there are now plenty of "legitimate" corporations (Blizzard, for starters - who now employs Cohen) who have enough vested commerical interest in bt to fund such development, even if Cohen were forced out of what he started.
So, what you're saying is that if we give up non-free content, you'll stop the advertising?
Promise?
-
As excellent as that sounds, I call bullshit. Having access to an audience - any audience - is more important than the content itself. If they have to make up content, advertisers will.