If you write something what you write still exists even if someone makes a new version that has been changed.
yeah. sure. read any shakespeare lately?
Does anyone think the script for "O" was actually written by Shakespeare himself? No, I don't think so.
i know plenty of people who know the story of "O", but have no clue whatsoever who Shakespeare is...
To put it in terms a programmer can understand Larry Wall put it like this: "When perl 6 comes out you'll still have perl 5, you aren't going to lose anything"
why do you assume that i am also incapable of such absolutism?
the fact is though, this story is about anarchy vs. order, as it relates to literature.
edits are the ultimate anarchist expression. publication is order.
You could have copyright last 1000 years it still won't save you from that...
actually, that depends who i registered that copyright with, and what chance they had to enforce it.
i never said it was perfect, but copyright is a social issue with very personal consequence for... an individual.
...so in your perfect world, quoting you would be prohibited... umm... yeah... only if i were foolish enough to believe that a pseudo-fascist 'ultra-right' condition can only come about by dialectic (look it up) presumption.
i hold no such view. for me, the unsolved is just as valuable as the solved. yes, its a paradox: you cannot publish something without giving it up for alteration. you are right.
but at the same time, society grants authors rights. one of those rights is the right of non-change. that certain authors choose to exercise those rights with edits doesn't detract from the point: once you have released your work, away from your own personal little box^H^H^Huniverse, off into the bad ol' world, you no longer have any control.
yet, society, in its quest for freedom, grants authors the rights of control to the greatest extent possible. that technology continues to challenge social capacity for doing so, is a paradox, considering the sources of such vast technological progress, and their so-called 'purpose'... and the ability of society to provide such control to authors, in the face of such technological 'reality', is a measure of that society indeed.
The right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed -- where does it come from?
That is a very good question. The answer is: it comes from "Freedom".
Paradox is just as valuable as resolution. This is the nature of a truly 'free' state of being.
The right to unalteration is a given one - it comes from the society you associate with. Any author who has had his works pirated, probably doesn't belong to the society doing the pirating - or else, it wouldn't be called 'pirating', it'd be called 'publishing'.
Nothing is absolute. Always remember that. Always.
Rights are the actual benefits of the social contract, and as the latter changes the former obviously do too.
And that is my point. Individuals natural enemy is Society.
In the context of Art, or "Intellectualism" as opposed to... say... chopping-wood-ism... Society is simultaneously its biggest Enemy, and its greatest Worshipper.
Like I said, its a Paradox. Dialectism won't suffer you well, here...
It _IS_ necessary to control 'culture', but what... is... 'culture' if it isn't change, or at the very least 'difference'?
This is one of those area's where there are no true absolutes.
Yes, cultures must control themselves, lest they ignore the fundamental rudiments of human existence (eat, sleep, drink, fuck, shit, die), but at the same time, cultures must maintain an excellent pace of change, lest the constituent membership tire and... move off to some other village more worthy of their labor.
One thing that all these so-called intellectuals fail to take into account in their calls for revolution, is the fact that authors - people who actually take the time to sit down and write, for their readers, something worth reading - have a right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed.
The Natural Universe already takes its toll on every single word. Entropy is a tempest. As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
The right to be extends to authors. If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
So far, technology has produced the paradox that it is simultaneously capable of reproducing things, perfectly, and guarantee'ing their 'sameness'... at the same time ensuring that persistent, consistent, alteration is the only constant.
People who have something to say, have a right to be heard. That right includes the stipulation that, if you are relaying what someone has to say about something, to someone else, you have a responsibility not to alter that work.
Its an absolute, and we all know how impossible they can be, but change for the sake of change is destructive... Intellectuals discussing 'property of intelligence' rights ought to factor that a lot more than they do. I didn't walk away from "The Anarchist In the Library" with anything more than yet-another dialectic view that 'the only true alternative to something is its opposite'.
And we know how tired a philosophical stance that is. Booo---orring... Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism...
If Linux doesn't run on it, then there's no point doing a toolkit/API for pen-based computing in Linux.
What you should be asking is where are the patches for Blender to put touchscreen to some serious use? How about those Mozilla gestures? There are *tons* of bits of Linux' mouse and UI code which can benefit from touchscreen.
I don't, personally, care for Linux always following the money. Hardly any of the innovation in Linux came about for 'market control' reasons, a fact non-Linux'ers and Linux'ers alike seem happy to neglect...
So, yes. Great that these now run Linux... and are cheap enough now maybe some developers will get into them, and start (slowly at first, building, building...) adding support.
Never mind parts: Look for black-market complete design ripoff.dxf files... with this sort of thing becoming 'easier for the public', wonder what it'll do to force 'other' manufacturing to raise their standards?
With "Home-Industial-Strength-Manufacturing" style setups, will we see the end of certain mass-market consumer items, and instead see more 'soft products' where the one-off design.dxf file is what you're buying, not the actual product?
If I could grow my own Walkman in a vat, I would. 'cept it'd be called something else instead, of course, and bear my own personal seal, not SONY's, heh heh...
In my industry (musical instruments), we have two pretty important trade shows each year: Frankfurt Musik Messe, and NAMM. Messe is in Germany, NAMM in SoCal (sometimes LA, sometimes OC).
Lately - over the last 4 years or so - I have noticed that these events are less and less important from the perspective of 'promotion/marketing to your market', and more and more important from the perspective of 'have a good time with the industry, party a little'.
What would be ideal is a little bit of Synth-DIY, some Messe, and some WMC all mixed together, though... no NAMM though, I'm sick of NAMM.
I always thought that it'd be nice to have a PDA based entirely on Flash, where all the apps were Flash-based/-authored, etc.
Since I work for a hardware developer I've thought this quite a few times. Its really too bad there aren't any good embedded-Flash based systems around that can be incorporated into devices... guess we'll just have to think about using Cairo... when its finished.
RSS is like a hi-jack of majordomo, by marketing dweebs.
E-mail - yes folks, good old fashioned SMTP, can be used for these things that RSS is supposedly 'good for'.
We do not need yet another protocol for transfering messages to each other. A properly defined X-Protocol addition, which allows for embedded XML in the Body text, would solve this distribution problem entirely.
Mail scales well. Like it or not, but it does. Its a perfect model for RSS...
it also exposes their intentions... if p2p is proven to be an effective, democratic process for publishing government documents, and yet some right-wing republican fascist attack squad tries to pass a bill that outlaws all p2p use, forever (lest the terrorists attack), then it really truly exposes the intention of that party to confuscate and continue to keep government from answering for its responsibility to The People.
quick, everyone, get behind this effort to p2p'ize gov't documents and the public record. to fail to do so would be to let the Terrorist-Haters win...
we have seen many, many examples of the U.S. gov't altering published data to support political motivation.
using p2p, where there is -no one single point of control- would actually be a far more Democracy-supporting protocol than FTP or HTTP, both of which are like the "fascist dicatorships of transfer protocols"...
Perhaps 'optimized' was a poor choice of words; I don't just mean from a speed perspective, but also 'managed system' persepective. Apple are usually 3 or 4 point releases behind on some of the stuff they're including - Gentoo can be used to keep things running the latest and greatest, and thus be getting 'better optimized software' installed...
You cannot simply use a different Windowserver (like X11) and expect all your OS X apps to run.
I'm not saying this is what you're going to do. I'm saying the base system upon which OSX is running - Darwin and its associated tools - can be more finely optimized to newer/faster/buglessier versions.
Yes, a pissing match between Apple and Gentoo over who can compile the best bins for PPC is pointless; they're both going to be, essentially, using the same tools. But I think Gentoo gives you a bleeding edge, anyway...
You can still -RUN- all that stuff, its just that Gentoo will let you fine-tune all the goodness (kernel, system/bin's,/usr/bin's, etc) even further, around it, and yet still maintain a fully working properly configured system.
This one really does go up to 11.
And since its Open Source, Apple can instantly turn around, and start using it themselves.
Its not "Apple, we have a problem.", its "Apple, we have source."
I think that this will only encourage apple to help and contribute to the OSS community even more.
Maybe after Tiger, we'll see Apple work to include Gentoo portage scripts in the base install... Gentoo really is a superlative unix-software management system.
This means (sorta, as in 'soon') that a Mac-user will be able to rebuild their own OSX box, using the Gentoo scripts, and still be able to maintain compatability with all OSX apps.
In other words, a 'better build system: a public one' has been unleashed on a commercial operating system, so that - separate from the company itself - alternative builds of the OS can be done, publically.
Why is this good? Because with Gentoo you can take personal risks that Apple can't. Gentoo allows you to build a system "Just for You", whereas Apple have to compile/link things "For Everyone".
Expect to see highly-tuned Gentoo boxes running GentooMacOS in the future, smokin' 'Factory OS' setups. I'll be digging into this a bit further, next point release sort of thing, and if I get the same results out of applying Gentoo to my OSX machine as I have with my Linux boxes, I'm excited. I may man I can put off a hardware upgrade or two and just 'Take Things To The Next Level' on my aging Powerbook...
Oh, and in case you think Apple should be 'worried about' this, it seems to me that they already get the point. With all the OS releases they've been doing lately, and the upgrades/improvements in the one area 'open source' is lacking: usability, and it seems to me that they're positioned well to be 'competing with the Open Source Base'... but thats just my personal opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no such right. ... by saying so, you have proven my point. i say i do, you say i don't.
copyright is a social right. its an individual expression, socially commuted.
If you write something what you write still exists even if someone makes a new version that has been changed.
... an individual.
yeah. sure. read any shakespeare lately?
Does anyone think the script for "O" was actually written by Shakespeare himself? No, I don't think so.
i know plenty of people who know the story of "O", but have no clue whatsoever who Shakespeare is...
To put it in terms a programmer can understand Larry Wall put it like this: "When perl 6 comes out you'll still have perl 5, you aren't going to lose anything"
why do you assume that i am also incapable of such absolutism?
the fact is though, this story is about anarchy vs. order, as it relates to literature.
edits are the ultimate anarchist expression. publication is order.
You could have copyright last 1000 years it still won't save you from that...
actually, that depends who i registered that copyright with, and what chance they had to enforce it.
i never said it was perfect, but copyright is a social issue with very personal consequence for
Nothing you do can change that.
Not true. I could belong to a society which might protect my words, long after I am gone.
You depend on your fellow man for all media.
...so in your perfect world, quoting you would be prohibited ... umm ... yeah ... only if i were foolish enough to believe that a pseudo-fascist 'ultra-right' condition can only come about by dialectic (look it up) presumption.
i hold no such view. for me, the unsolved is just as valuable as the solved. yes, its a paradox: you cannot publish something without giving it up for alteration. you are right.
but at the same time, society grants authors rights. one of those rights is the right of non-change. that certain authors choose to exercise those rights with edits doesn't detract from the point: once you have released your work, away from your own personal little box^H^H^Huniverse, off into the bad ol' world, you no longer have any control.
yet, society, in its quest for freedom, grants authors the rights of control to the greatest extent possible. that technology continues to challenge social capacity for doing so, is a paradox, considering the sources of such vast technological progress, and their so-called 'purpose'... and the ability of society to provide such control to authors, in the face of such technological 'reality', is a measure of that society indeed.
and that is the point.
The right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed -- where does it come from?
That is a very good question. The answer is: it comes from "Freedom".
Paradox is just as valuable as resolution. This is the nature of a truly 'free' state of being.
The right to unalteration is a given one - it comes from the society you associate with. Any author who has had his works pirated, probably doesn't belong to the society doing the pirating - or else, it wouldn't be called 'pirating', it'd be called 'publishing'.
Rights are purely social.
There is a very big difference between being heard, and forcing someone to listen.
That you occupy your thoughts with one end of the extreme is of no consequence. Whatsoever.
If I have something to say, rest assured, you will listen. If I don't have anything to say, then nothing.
This is fundamental to all media, no matter how self-important.
yeah, okay, so you're the pimp and the bitch, same alley.
look, it doesn't matter: once you have authored something, it no longer belongs to you!
you may hope to profit, but that is just a hope! your words defeat you while they also glorify your existence!
its a paradox. get over it. dialectism is your enemy.
No.
... say ... chopping-wood-ism ... Society is simultaneously its biggest Enemy, and its greatest Worshipper.
...
Nothing is absolute. Always remember that. Always.
Rights are the actual benefits of the social contract, and as the latter changes the former obviously do too.
And that is my point. Individuals natural enemy is Society.
In the context of Art, or "Intellectualism" as opposed to
Like I said, its a Paradox. Dialectism won't suffer you well, here
The control of culture is sometimes necessary???
... is ... 'culture' if it isn't change, or at the very least 'difference'?
... move off to some other village more worthy of their labor.
Yes. Definitely. Culture is nothing but Control.
It _IS_ necessary to control 'culture', but what
This is one of those area's where there are no true absolutes.
Yes, cultures must control themselves, lest they ignore the fundamental rudiments of human existence (eat, sleep, drink, fuck, shit, die), but at the same time, cultures must maintain an excellent pace of change, lest the constituent membership tire and
One thing that all these so-called intellectuals fail to take into account in their calls for revolution, is the fact that authors - people who actually take the time to sit down and write, for their readers, something worth reading - have a right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed.
... at the same time ensuring that persistent, consistent, alteration is the only constant.
... Intellectuals discussing 'property of intelligence' rights ought to factor that a lot more than they do. I didn't walk away from "The Anarchist In the Library" with anything more than yet-another dialectic view that 'the only true alternative to something is its opposite'.
The Natural Universe already takes its toll on every single word. Entropy is a tempest. As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
The right to be extends to authors. If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
So far, technology has produced the paradox that it is simultaneously capable of reproducing things, perfectly, and guarantee'ing their 'sameness'
People who have something to say, have a right to be heard. That right includes the stipulation that, if you are relaying what someone has to say about something, to someone else, you have a responsibility not to alter that work.
Its an absolute, and we all know how impossible they can be, but change for the sake of change is destructive
And we know how tired a philosophical stance that is. Booo---orring... Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism...
way to help him out ... take justin spence's site out with a quick /.'ing or so ... ;)
If Linux doesn't run on it, then there's no point doing a toolkit/API for pen-based computing in Linux.
What you should be asking is where are the patches for Blender to put touchscreen to some serious use? How about those Mozilla gestures? There are *tons* of bits of Linux' mouse and UI code which can benefit from touchscreen.
I don't, personally, care for Linux always following the money. Hardly any of the innovation in Linux came about for 'market control' reasons, a fact non-Linux'ers and Linux'ers alike seem happy to neglect
So, yes. Great that these now run Linux... and are cheap enough now maybe some developers will get into them, and start (slowly at first, building, building...) adding support.
Never mind parts: Look for black-market complete design ripoff.dxf files
With "Home-Industial-Strength-Manufacturing" style setups, will we see the end of certain mass-market consumer items, and instead see more 'soft products' where the one-off design.dxf file is what you're buying, not the actual product?
If I could grow my own Walkman in a vat, I would. 'cept it'd be called something else instead, of course, and bear my own personal seal, not SONY's, heh heh
In my industry (musical instruments), we have two pretty important trade shows each year: Frankfurt Musik Messe, and NAMM. Messe is in Germany, NAMM in SoCal (sometimes LA, sometimes OC).
... no NAMM though, I'm sick of NAMM.
Lately - over the last 4 years or so - I have noticed that these events are less and less important from the perspective of 'promotion/marketing to your market', and more and more important from the perspective of 'have a good time with the industry, party a little'.
What would be ideal is a little bit of Synth-DIY, some Messe, and some WMC all mixed together, though
I think Flash is good for devices.
I always thought that it'd be nice to have a PDA based entirely on Flash, where all the apps were Flash-based/-authored, etc.
Since I work for a hardware developer I've thought this quite a few times. Its really too bad there aren't any good embedded-Flash based systems around that can be incorporated into devices
But chances are you can still access the unaltered/still existent document using Wayback
*sigh* Orwell would be proud.
RSS is like a hi-jack of majordomo, by marketing dweebs.
E-mail - yes folks, good old fashioned SMTP, can be used for these things that RSS is supposedly 'good for'.
We do not need yet another protocol for transfering messages to each other. A properly defined X-Protocol addition, which allows for embedded XML in the Body text, would solve this distribution problem entirely.
Mail scales well. Like it or not, but it does. Its a perfect model for RSS
it also exposes their intentions... if p2p is proven to be an effective, democratic process for publishing government documents, and yet some right-wing republican fascist attack squad tries to pass a bill that outlaws all p2p use, forever (lest the terrorists attack), then it really truly exposes the intention of that party to confuscate and continue to keep government from answering for its responsibility to The People.
quick, everyone, get behind this effort to p2p'ize gov't documents and the public record. to fail to do so would be to let the Terrorist-Haters win...
because that web site can be taken down.
because it can be altered.
we have seen many, many examples of the U.S. gov't altering published data to support political motivation.
using p2p, where there is -no one single point of control- would actually be a far more Democracy-supporting protocol than FTP or HTTP, both of which are like the "fascist dicatorships of transfer protocols"...
To what?
Easy: a Hardware company. One that implements Linux.
Perhaps 'optimized' was a poor choice of words; I don't just mean from a speed perspective, but also 'managed system' persepective. Apple are usually 3 or 4 point releases behind on some of the stuff they're including - Gentoo can be used to keep things running the latest and greatest, and thus be getting 'better optimized software' installed...
You cannot simply use a different Windowserver (like X11) and expect all your OS X apps to run.
I'm not saying this is what you're going to do. I'm saying the base system upon which OSX is running - Darwin and its associated tools - can be more finely optimized to newer/faster/buglessier versions.
Yes, a pissing match between Apple and Gentoo over who can compile the best bins for PPC is pointless; they're both going to be, essentially, using the same tools. But I think Gentoo gives you a bleeding edge, anyway
You can still -RUN- all that stuff, its just that Gentoo will let you fine-tune all the goodness (kernel, system
This one really does go up to 11.
And since its Open Source, Apple can instantly turn around, and start using it themselves.
Its not "Apple, we have a problem.", its "Apple, we have source."
They (Apple) certainly get the point...
I think that this will only encourage apple to help and contribute to the OSS community even more.
... Gentoo really is a superlative unix-software management system.
Maybe after Tiger, we'll see Apple work to include Gentoo portage scripts in the base install
This means (sorta, as in 'soon') that a Mac-user will be able to rebuild their own OSX box, using the Gentoo scripts, and still be able to maintain compatability with all OSX apps.
In other words, a 'better build system: a public one' has been unleashed on a commercial operating system, so that - separate from the company itself - alternative builds of the OS can be done, publically.
Why is this good? Because with Gentoo you can take personal risks that Apple can't. Gentoo allows you to build a system "Just for You", whereas Apple have to compile/link things "For Everyone".
Expect to see highly-tuned Gentoo boxes running GentooMacOS in the future, smokin' 'Factory OS' setups. I'll be digging into this a bit further, next point release sort of thing, and if I get the same results out of applying Gentoo to my OSX machine as I have with my Linux boxes, I'm excited. I may man I can put off a hardware upgrade or two and just 'Take Things To The Next Level' on my aging Powerbook...
Oh, and in case you think Apple should be 'worried about' this, it seems to me that they already get the point. With all the OS releases they've been doing lately, and the upgrades/improvements in the one area 'open source' is lacking: usability, and it seems to me that they're positioned well to be 'competing with the Open Source Base'