He makes the point that there are only two types of regulation; Government and Corporate... however there is a third, and that is Social.
I've come to realize that community is so very important to our well being and that we have systematically removed it from our (American) culture. It's easy to see why he missed this point, we haven't do a very good job of utilizing social regulation.
Here's a simple example. There was an ad campaign which attempted to curb litter. The ads focused on individuals and made it clear that you were responsible for your own litter and that you should dispose of it. The reality is that we are all responsible for the trash on the ground. The ad made litter appear to be an individual responsibility and if you littered it was a sign that you were a "litter bug", but if you walk past litter and don't pick it up, then you are just as responsible.
We ignore our responsibilities as members of society by blaming problems on other individuals (or corporations, governments.) Want to know who will regulate... look in the mirror. It's you.
.
They mention that they would fire you because you weren't qualified... but they hired you for you're current position.
Sounds like they are trying to play a political game with you. Often companies will promote within as a way of saving money. Your sallary won't get as big as they would have to pay for a new hire.
When I was 15 I was dying for the respect of my Elders. I couldn't stand that they all thought they knew so much more than they obviously did and that it was hard to get any credit for being intelligent.
How have you delt with a world where being 15 is considered being an idiot? Have you found ways to make adults listen to your ideas? Do you think technology has help create an enviroment where age matters less? Do you find yourself being biased against old people (people over 25)?
Isn't insurance a form of gambling? Look at the simularities:
You pay money and if a random eventuality occures, you gain a finacial reward in excess of what you paid in. Should this fail to happen you simple lose what your initially paid.
Like gambling, insurance is designed to make sure that the "house" always makes more money than it pays out.
So if they are basically the same, how can any state that makes gambling illegal have insurance?
A method using advanced AI and human/computer interface interpretation that will allow users to purchase items they don't even know they want. By extrapolating browsing habits and mouse movements, items are selected and sent to the user, charged to their account, and added to their online profile without any action required by the user.
Someone wondered why this was looking like the second coming and what all the/.'ers were getting so excited about. The answer is fairly simple:
Two big things are happening:
The best UI is being added to a unix base system.
The best system software (unix) is getting the Macintosh interface.
Sure, it's the "You got your penut butter in my chocolate... you got your chocolate in my penut butter" kinda thing, but it gets both sides excited because it's exactly what both sides have so badly needed.
I've always found it crazy to think that we could ever leave earth. There is no other place in the solar system that has a closer atmosphere to what we need... even if this one started to drift. In order to populate another planet we would first have to terraform it, but if we had this technology we'd use it here first.
"People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo."
You must be kidding, right? Why pay the $10 a month to play on some slow, overpacked, lame server when you could play on your own and invite your close friends to boot?
The real money for Massively Online Games is the ongoing subscription payments. They could probably give the client away free and not feel it, but if you steal their subscribers, you're in trouble.
In my opinion, if you agreed to an license, it's your own fault. You didn't have to agree. No one forced you to play EverQuest.
"7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer the Software..."
The irony is that both Mac and Linux could learn lots from each other. Macintosh has alway has the easiest system for new users to get their heads around and Linux has the zeitgeist.
I credit Macs with learning that they should probably be unix under the hood and I applaud them for making the move. It's been a long road and they finally made the right call.
Linux has been slower to respond to obvious issues of usability. Still labled a "geek OS" by the masses, it can't pass the Granda test.
After Mac OS X, you'll have a reliable, unix based OS with first in class usability. Took them over 15 years, but hey... Linux has time to catuch up.
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
By opening up the threat to anyone creating searchable indicies they are showing how rediculous the suit against them is. It's a bitter pill for the Justice department to swallow that helping people find stuff is not the same as giving it to them.
I don't know much about this type of science, so I'd really like someone to answer this question.
I've heard that there was a large meteor that started a chain reaction that killed off the dinosaurs. Could it be possible that WE were that meteor? That human life's building blocks were on that meteor sent from another place?
I sound like a bad sci-fi plot, but it begged the question.
The current model of game software goes something like this:
Game Designer has idea. Game Designer tries to get money for idea. Publisher likes idea and gives money to make game in exchange for majority of profit of game. Publisher promotes game. Game is created. Publisher sells game. Publisher makes lion's share of profit. Game designer gets some money.
What if instead of having a publisher you could get money directly from the public before starting to making a game?
Imagine a system where designers would pitch the game directly to you, the potential customer. The pitch would include features, mock screen shots, a demo and anything else the design team thought would sell it. It would also include the projected budget to make the game happen, including any profit they wanted to make.
If you thought the idea for the game was good, and the design team was good, you could pay to have the game written. Pay whatever amount you thought it was worth (I think good games are worth about $30). The money would sit in an escrow account and you could opt out at any time before the budget total was reached.
When the budget total is reached the team is now under contract to build the game.
The best part? Once the game is done, it's release to the masses.
This also references computer software as well. It costs nearly nothing to copy a CD with software, and make a profit on it. Look at the copies made in Russia, where $2 can buy a CD with every OS that Microsoft makes.
Clearly our model of property is screwed.
Creating a new system that rewarded innovation is hard.
What's your definition of monopoly. When we used to play the board game, we didn't need to play the whole thing out. It became pretty clear at the end, when one guy only had a single property, that the other player had won. You've said you're not a lawyer, so I'm trying to put this in terms you'll understand. If you own all the other deeds in Monopoly and the other player own Baltic Ave, it doesn't matter if he let's you stay at Baltic Ave for free.
Now I'm no lawyer, but these antitrust laws seem to me pretty darned nebulous...
Not being a lawyer is a poor excuse for not understand the law. Read the law and then comment on it.
perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty
I'm really tired of hearing this "Death Penalty" reference. This is certainly not the death penalty. Microsoft will not be dying. Instead it will be seperated into two parts. One of which will probably retain the name, and most of the better staff.
Omega comes to mind first. Back when I was younger I would spend hours making the robotic tanks in Omega dance around each other killing with giant cannons. The language was advanced enough that you sometimes needed to look things up, but was easy enough to start right away.
a link: http://www.atlantic.net/~flburns/omega/
Oh, and if you ever had an error in your code, you fixed it right quick, too.
There are lots of other programming games too, like corewars!
http://koth.org/
Positions, Moves and Chess
on
Solving Chess?
·
· Score: 1
There are a finite amount of moves and board positions in chess. It would appear that either DNA or Quantum computing would be able to solve the problem.
However, there are more possible board positions in chess than there are molecules in the known universe, or so I've been told.
If that's true then only Quantum computing would seem reasonable for finding the solution.
Does anyone know how much space a book solutions would take up? (A book solution is one where all possible positions are mapped and linked to any other position that could occure from it.)
Re:Are They Tallking About The Same Movie I Saw ?
on
Terry Gilliam's Brazil
·
· Score: 1
Actually I like the ideas put forth in this review, even if it's clearly from a "hacker" perspective. It's refreshing to see people bring their "ethos" to bear on the media of the day.
Having said that, I'd like it just as much if you, mochaone, would also give your perspective. While it's easy to snipe the target as you've done, it's a much harder thing to create the target. Stop complaining about how we "need to get out more and broaden your horizons" and give us something to do it with.
Seems to me the only thing missing from this unit is a kicking 3D card. Lan parties would never be the same after this baby hit the streets, all you would need is a monitor farm.
I'm looking to build a new game system, and I would love having one that fit in my backpack.
Don't sue because of copywrite violation, sue because of lost revenue. Your actual damages would be based on lost revenue from the technology that was not released by the corporation who violated the GPL. Since anyone in the public domain could claim damages (as the entire of the public could benifit from the release of the code.) it entirely possible to create a class action suit on behalf of all those so incumbered.
Doesn't this make any sense to you?
It's not about copywrite. It's about access to public technology.
Quoted from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
It's clear to me from this license that if you do not offer up the source code from a work created from a GPL'ed work, then anyone who would have benefitted from access to your changes can sue for the loss of that benefit.
Ask not who should sue over GPL violations, for surely it is you. The "P" in GPL is for "Public" license and there is no greater fear to a corporation and thousands of people sueing them. Who protects the GPL?
I sorry to say that I was disappointed with All Tomorrows Parties. I suppose it's unfair to compare this work to previous books by Gibson, but there was nothing new there. Nothing to hold on to.
I found myself constantly hoping for a character I could enjoy as much as I enjoyed Molly, or Case, or Automatic Jack. These were characters I cared about and who filled my imagination with ideas.
I've heard it said that Gibson never liked the term "CyberPunk". If that's the case, he's certainly gotten as far away from that original idea as he could. Nothing here inspires like Cyberspace, nothing evokes the shear awe of vat grown street ronin. It's a shame really, because I enjoyed the high/low fantasy of those books more than this near future that has been vision corrected for the new millennium.
Although I've never been pleased with the final story arcs from Gibson, this series was particularly disappointing. It was predictable beyond the scope of even the last book, with heavy foreshadowing back in Idoru. I didn't like the way the Neuromancer/Count Zero/Monalisa Overdrive series ended, but at least I didn't see it coming.
I still enjoy the turn of a phrase and intense detail Gibson brings to the table, but I fell in love with Neuromancer and this pales by comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
He makes the point that there are only two types of regulation; Government and Corporate... however there is a third, and that is Social.
I've come to realize that community is so very important to our well being and that we have systematically removed it from our (American) culture. It's easy to see why he missed this point, we haven't do a very good job of utilizing social regulation.
Here's a simple example. There was an ad campaign which attempted to curb litter. The ads focused on individuals and made it clear that you were responsible for your own litter and that you should dispose of it. The reality is that we are all responsible for the trash on the ground. The ad made litter appear to be an individual responsibility and if you littered it was a sign that you were a "litter bug", but if you walk past litter and don't pick it up, then you are just as responsible.
We ignore our responsibilities as members of society by blaming problems on other individuals (or corporations, governments.) Want to know who will regulate... look in the mirror. It's you.
.
They mention that they would fire you because you weren't qualified... but they hired you for you're current position.
Sounds like they are trying to play a political game with you. Often companies will promote within as a way of saving money. Your sallary won't get as big as they would have to pay for a new hire.
Talk to a lawyer in your state.
When I was 15 I was dying for the respect of my Elders. I couldn't stand that they all thought they knew so much more than they obviously did and that it was hard to get any credit for being intelligent.
How have you delt with a world where being 15 is considered being an idiot? Have you found ways to make adults listen to your ideas? Do you think technology has help create an enviroment where age matters less? Do you find yourself being biased against old people (people over 25)?
If any distribution has a solution, then don't all distributions have access to that same solution?
1,529,410,500,000 to 1.
I doubt that even lottery tickets seem reasonable compared to this number.
What is the most powerful effect that the internet has on American society?
:-)
(Their answers will tell more about them than about the internet, but you should delete this note first
John
Isn't insurance a form of gambling? Look at the simularities:
You pay money and if a random eventuality occures, you gain a finacial reward in excess of what you paid in. Should this fail to happen you simple lose what your initially paid.
Like gambling, insurance is designed to make sure that the "house" always makes more money than it pays out.
So if they are basically the same, how can any state that makes gambling illegal have insurance?
A method using advanced AI and human/computer interface interpretation that will allow users to purchase items they don't even know they want. By extrapolating browsing habits and mouse movements, items are selected and sent to the user, charged to their account, and added to their online profile without any action required by the user.
Someone wondered why this was looking like the second coming and what all the
Two big things are happening:
The best UI is being added to a unix base system.
The best system software (unix) is getting the Macintosh interface.
Sure, it's the "You got your penut butter in my chocolate... you got your chocolate in my penut butter" kinda thing, but it gets both sides excited because it's exactly what both sides have so badly needed.
I've always found it crazy to think that we could ever leave earth. There is no other place in the solar system that has a closer atmosphere to what we need... even if this one started to drift. In order to populate another planet we would first have to terraform it, but if we had this technology we'd use it here first.
"People still buy your game, and they still use your game. They just aren't connecting to your server. Boo hoo."
You must be kidding, right? Why pay the $10 a month to play on some slow, overpacked, lame server when you could play on your own and invite your close friends to boot?
The real money for Massively Online Games is the ongoing subscription payments. They could probably give the client away free and not feel it, but if you steal their subscribers, you're in trouble.
In my opinion, if you agreed to an license, it's your own fault. You didn't have to agree. No one forced you to play EverQuest.
From the EULA: (my emphasis)
"7. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, we hereby grant to you a non-exclusive license to use the Software solely in connection with playing the Game via an authorized and fully-paid Account. You may not copy (except to make one necessary back-up copy), distribute, rent, lease, loan, modify or create derivative works, adapt, translate, perform, display, sublicense or transfer the Software..."
I was hoping to get ABBA to write the songs too..
The irony is that both Mac and Linux could learn lots from each other. Macintosh has alway has the easiest system for new users to get their heads around and Linux has the zeitgeist.
I credit Macs with learning that they should probably be unix under the hood and I applaud them for making the move. It's been a long road and they finally made the right call.
Linux has been slower to respond to obvious issues of usability. Still labled a "geek OS" by the masses, it can't pass the Granda test.
After Mac OS X, you'll have a reliable, unix based OS with first in class usability. Took them over 15 years, but hey... Linux has time to catuch up.
Actually it look more like these guys are suing to protect themselves. Read the article.
By opening up the threat to anyone creating searchable indicies they are showing how rediculous the suit against them is. It's a bitter pill for the Justice department to swallow that helping people find stuff is not the same as giving it to them.
I don't know much about this type of science, so I'd really like someone to answer this question.
I've heard that there was a large meteor that started a chain reaction that killed off the dinosaurs. Could it be possible that WE were that meteor? That human life's building blocks were on that meteor sent from another place?
I sound like a bad sci-fi plot, but it begged the question.
The current model of game software goes something like this:
Game Designer has idea.
Game Designer tries to get money for idea.
Publisher likes idea and gives money to make game in exchange for majority of profit of game.
Publisher promotes game.
Game is created.
Publisher sells game.
Publisher makes lion's share of profit.
Game designer gets some money.
What if instead of having a publisher you could get money directly from the public before starting to making a game?
Imagine a system where designers would pitch the game directly to you, the potential customer. The pitch would include features, mock screen shots, a demo and anything else the design team thought would sell it. It would also include the projected budget to make the game happen, including any profit they wanted to make.
If you thought the idea for the game was good, and the design team was good, you could pay to have the game written. Pay whatever amount you thought it was worth (I think good games are worth about $30). The money would sit in an escrow account and you could opt out at any time before the budget total was reached.
When the budget total is reached the team is now under contract to build the game.
The best part? Once the game is done, it's release to the masses.
This also references computer software as well. It costs nearly nothing to copy a CD with software, and make a profit on it. Look at the copies made in Russia, where $2 can buy a CD with every OS that Microsoft makes.
Clearly our model of property is screwed.
Creating a new system that rewarded innovation is hard.
Microsoft is not a monopoly.
What's your definition of monopoly. When we used to play the board game, we didn't need to play the whole thing out. It became pretty clear at the end, when one guy only had a single property, that the other player had won. You've said you're not a lawyer, so I'm trying to put this in terms you'll understand. If you own all the other deeds in Monopoly and the other player own Baltic Ave, it doesn't matter if he let's you stay at Baltic Ave for free.
Now I'm no lawyer, but these antitrust laws seem to me pretty darned nebulous...
Not being a lawyer is a poor excuse for not understand the law. Read the law and then comment on it.
perhaps I'm wrong and MS does deserve what's tantamount to a death penalty
I'm really tired of hearing this "Death Penalty" reference. This is certainly not the death penalty. Microsoft will not be dying. Instead it will be seperated into two parts. One of which will probably retain the name, and most of the better staff.
Omega comes to mind first. Back when I was younger I would spend hours making the robotic tanks in Omega dance around each other killing with giant cannons. The language was advanced enough that you sometimes needed to look things up, but was easy enough to start right away.
a link:
http://www.atlantic.net/~flburns/omega/
Oh, and if you ever had an error in your code, you fixed it right quick, too.
There are lots of other programming games too, like corewars!
http://koth.org/
There are a finite amount of moves and board positions in chess. It would appear that either DNA or Quantum computing would be able to solve the problem.
However, there are more possible board positions in chess than there are molecules in the known universe, or so I've been told.
If that's true then only Quantum computing would seem reasonable for finding the solution.
Does anyone know how much space a book solutions would take up? (A book solution is one where all possible positions are mapped and linked to any other position that could occure from it.)
Actually I like the ideas put forth in this review, even if it's clearly from a "hacker" perspective. It's refreshing to see people bring their "ethos" to bear on the media of the day.
Having said that, I'd like it just as much if you, mochaone, would also give your perspective. While it's easy to snipe the target as you've done, it's a much harder thing to create the target. Stop complaining about how we "need to get out more and broaden your horizons" and give us something to do it with.
peace.
Seems to me the only thing missing from this unit is a kicking 3D card. Lan parties would never be the same after this baby hit the streets, all you would need is a monitor farm.
I'm looking to build a new game system, and I would love having one that fit in my backpack.
You aren't thinking out of the box.
Don't sue because of copywrite violation, sue because of lost revenue. Your actual damages would be based on lost revenue from the technology that was not released by the corporation who violated the GPL. Since anyone in the public domain could claim damages (as the entire of the public could benifit from the release of the code.) it entirely possible to create a class action suit on behalf of all those so incumbered.
Doesn't this make any sense to you?
It's not about copywrite. It's about access to public technology.
Quoted from the GPL:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
It's clear to me from this license that if you do not offer up the source code from a work created from a GPL'ed work, then anyone who would have benefitted from access to your changes can sue for the loss of that benefit.
Ask not who should sue over GPL violations, for surely
it is you. The "P" in GPL is for "Public" license and
there is no greater fear to a corporation and thousands
of people sueing them. Who protects the GPL?
You do.
I sorry to say that I was disappointed with All Tomorrows Parties. I
suppose it's unfair to compare this work to previous books by Gibson,
but there was nothing new there. Nothing to hold on to.
I found myself constantly hoping for a character I could enjoy as much
as I enjoyed Molly, or Case, or Automatic Jack. These were characters I
cared about and who filled my imagination with ideas.
I've heard it said that Gibson never liked the term "CyberPunk". If
that's the case, he's certainly gotten as far away from that original
idea as he could. Nothing here inspires like Cyberspace, nothing evokes
the shear awe of vat grown street ronin. It's a shame really, because I
enjoyed the high/low fantasy of those books more than this near future
that has been vision corrected for the new millennium.
Although I've never been pleased with the final story arcs from Gibson,
this series was particularly disappointing. It was predictable beyond
the scope of even the last book, with heavy foreshadowing back in Idoru.
I didn't like the way the Neuromancer/Count Zero/Monalisa Overdrive series
ended, but at least I didn't see it coming.
I still enjoy the turn of a phrase and intense detail Gibson brings to the
table, but I fell in love with Neuromancer and this pales by comparison.
Neo -