"I'm sure most of the local area artists i know, who spend their time painting/sculpting/living on next to nothing"
Wow, that's noble and all but ask yourself - IS THIS A GOOD THING? Wouldn't you rather your local artists be actually making a respectable amount of money? I guess I should consider the destitute and broke lucky for being so noble, because after all, there's more to life than making money.
"Given that air is free, how can anyone make money out of aqualungs?"
Because there is no fucking breathable air underwater. DUH. This is a physical restriction.
"Given that water is free, how can Evian sell bottled water?"
Um, no, since land and natural resources have largely been privatized (read: made subject to private property), the only water that is "free" is water that is on land you own. The other water you get you pay for (e.g. with taxes to a city water system).
"Given that ideas are created freely, how can we make money on IP?"
Because we make laws that punish people for abusing other people's ideas.
The first two situations are physical realities. The third situation is due to legislation. So, either 1) some physical circumstance must make the open source software scarce (being digital basically precludes this) or 2) open source software companies have to lobby for welfare legislation.
No I'm not saying that Open Source software is somehow bad, and no I don't have any answers. I'm just saying we can't just keep patting ourselves on the back and collectively humming to ourselves so the bad thoughts go away.
The biggest win I see for software-as-service is for customization and setup support for large complicated enterprise systems. But again, this is obviously only server side. And once Open Source "wins", theoretically there won't be a market for "customization" or "configuration" of these systems because they will be so much better (remember, that was the premise to begin with).
Subsidization isn't actually that bad an idea. We subsidize all sorts of other things, like art and literature. Why not Open Source software that is for the common good?
'The only "pro" for them being humanoid is they must negotiate a world build for humanoids.'
That's a pretty damn big "pro". I don't care if the robot is a freakin genius...if it can't open a door or walk up stairs it's not going to be able to do much.
"Biological neurons have been shown in the laboratory to grow new connections based on information learned. In a robot, what possible mechanism could guide such growth?"
Self-reprogramming FPGAa perhaps? Dedicated genetic algorithm circuits which evaluate the behavior of the rest of a chip and reprogram it? Why do think this is so impossible? We may end up actually using biological processes for this "growth" anyway if/when we arrive at biological computing (DNA/molecular computing) etc. I fail to see what is so darn impossible about the process. It took evolution billions of years to produce us through random change...knowing this, I think we can definately speed that process up a bit to create AI.
Recently that manifest destiny is embodied in an absolutist definition of Progress. So instead of conquering the West, we now "conquer" the frontier of science, coming up with solutions for problems we never had in the first place, which in turn cause more problems which are handily solved by the next series of inventions....
Patient: Jesus, I just broke my leg, please help me. Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: Sure. Now, would you like us to resell your medical information? Patient: Of course not! Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: Ok, fill this out. Patient: [fills out form] Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: [waits with palm held out] Patient:...and...? Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: You'll have to pay us <jigabucks> to NOT sell your info of course...well, you *could* walk to this other hospital... Patient: I HAVE A BROKEN LEG! Patient: [aside to the audience] Well, I'm fucked aren't I? Audience: Yes Patient: Fine you bastards! Here is your <jigabucks> I'll let you know I'm voting for <Candidate N%2> next time! Collective Political System: [to self] har har. sucker.
ResNet services and wiring may not be modified or extended beyond the area of their intended use. This applies to all network, hardware, computer lab and in-room data jacks.
ResNet may not be used to provide the University of Colorado computer services or Internet access to anyone outside of the Residence Halls community for any purposes (other than those in direct support of the academic mission of the University).
I think I case could be made by the university that a wireless access point "extend the ResNet service beyond the area of their intended use" (whether or not they are actually being *USED* beyond the area of their intended use). Also, it is again *possible* that a WAP be used to provide access to someone outside of the Residence Halls community (even though this may not actually be occurring).
However, in their terms of service, they say the access is a "privelage" not a "right". That could probably be argued as long as *you* are paying for the services of the university - why should it not be a right?
Re:And let me be the first to say
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 2
So the response to an egregious tragedy is to retaliate with more egregious tragedy? I hope that vicious circle you live in is comfortable.
First Slashdotter: MS is coming out with a new "revolutionary" file system! *bash* *bash* *bash* All Slashdotters: Burn it! Burn it! Rational observer: Well, how do you know it's so bad? First Slashdotter: Well, it's from...MS! All Slashdotters: Yeah! Yeah! Burn it! Yeah!
"If you want software they wrote and they won't give it to you, find an alternative, write it yourself, anything else.."
The whole *point* is the avoid this vast duplication of effort. If a company has created something which has value to the public which it refuses to sell, and in fact is just going to dissolve, *why* shouldn't the public have access to it? How is this a silly or tragic law?
"But to claim that the Native Americans were pacifists to make your point is sheer idiocy."
Many (should I jump to conclusions and say "most"?) were, and I doubt even the worst could come close to what could only be described as the genocide ("ethnic cleansing"?) that all forms of Europeans visited on native peoples. It's not like all the native americans went over to Europe, slaughtered Europeans, banned and destroyed their cultures and languages and left them in ghettos scrabbling over the crumbs from the dominant society. Yes I realize that it is a Romantic notion itself to portray native americans as such helpless people, but the truth is many (again, should I say "majority"?) have been conquered and left destitute in utter heart breaking cruelty.
Does this mean we will now be celebrating "Admiral Zheng He Day" instead of "Columbus Day"? I can hardly wait to crack out the firecrackers and paper dragon!
With the amount that our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, you would figure we could hook up a renewable energy generator to them...but NOOOooo...
"Lowering the price of games for college students, for example, was a great approach! It'd be cool if one day your student ID could get you a discount on games."
Agh! I think this would be considered a horrible approach to those who are struggling to actually get *any work done* in college! Down CounterStrike, begone EverQuest!
Re:I was looking for a C book...
on
C
·
· Score: 2
Not to get you all confused, but Digital Mars is developing a language called D (eleet C haxxors need not comment on languages named D) which is somewhat of a cross between C++ and Java in syntax, and is a migration path away from C/C++. I'm an "enterprise" Java programmer by day, but D really impresses me...it seems to be the right step to get *general application development* off the mistake-prone and complicated C/C++ languages.
No it's not a practical suggestion (AFAIK the compiler is not fully complete and the syntax is still being refined), but it sure is interesting.
"My point is that "didn't pay corporate tax" is frequently presented as "contributes nothing to society", which is completely untrue."
Sooo...let's see: a corporation should be valued because of the tax revenue its products generate? How craven. Taxes are (supposedly) pay back (or forward) for the services and priveliges government provides. Corporations pay the government back for an infrastructure that supports the free market and various other legal entitlements peculiar to corporations (limited liability, yadda yadda IANAL). To turn the tables and now suck up to get tax revenue for the very priveliges the state has bestowed on the corporation is just servile and sickening. Unfortunately trading political favors/legislation for money is all too tempting. How about the energy fiasco where the government "sold" away energy at cost, just to buy it back at a much higher expense, with the difference being pure profit for the energy companies.
Please raise your hand if you develop software for a living; that is, you support yourself and/or your family by developing software.
Now, keep your hand raised if you believe that your company could offer the same software that you helped to create as a free, open-source download and still keep you employed.
This is pretty much a straw man. The vast majority of businesses who use or develop software, do not *sell* software. Only software companies *sell* software. Everybody else just uses or develops it for internal use. In which case, Open Source/Free Software is entirely a *winning* proposition (given that in technical respects it is at least equal to proprietary software). I would not raise my hand because I work in a university IT department writing Java code 40 hours a week. Yet we do not *sell* any software. Amazing.
That said, yes, I believe there is a place for *both* free and proprietary software. But it's not as if our economy or way or life would crumble, or we would be visitied by the apocolypse if people started using free software. And *anyway* just because something is helping the economy does *not* make it the right thing to do! Slavery, for example, was great for the economy, that doesn't mean we should practice it.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm sure most of the local area artists i know, who spend their time painting/sculpting/living on next to nothing"
Wow, that's noble and all but ask yourself - IS THIS A GOOD THING? Wouldn't you rather your local artists be actually making a respectable amount of money? I guess I should consider the destitute and broke lucky for being so noble, because after all, there's more to life than making money.
"Given that air is free, how can anyone make money out of aqualungs?"
Because there is no fucking breathable air underwater. DUH. This is a physical restriction.
"Given that water is free, how can Evian sell bottled water?"
Um, no, since land and natural resources have largely been privatized (read: made subject to private property), the only water that is "free" is water that is on land you own. The other water you get you pay for (e.g. with taxes to a city water system).
"Given that ideas are created freely, how can we make money on IP?"
Because we make laws that punish people for abusing other people's ideas.
The first two situations are physical realities. The third situation is due to legislation. So, either 1) some physical circumstance must make the open source software scarce (being digital basically precludes this) or 2) open source software companies have to lobby for welfare legislation.
No I'm not saying that Open Source software is somehow bad, and no I don't have any answers. I'm just saying we can't just keep patting ourselves on the back and collectively humming to ourselves so the bad thoughts go away.
The biggest win I see for software-as-service is for customization and setup support for large complicated enterprise systems. But again, this is obviously only server side. And once Open Source "wins", theoretically there won't be a market for "customization" or "configuration" of these systems because they will be so much better (remember, that was the premise to begin with).
Subsidization isn't actually that bad an idea. We subsidize all sorts of other things, like art and literature. Why not Open Source software that is for the common good?
'The only "pro" for them being humanoid is they must negotiate a world build for humanoids.'
That's a pretty damn big "pro". I don't care if the robot is a freakin genius...if it can't open a door or walk up stairs it's not going to be able to do much.
"Biological neurons have been shown in the laboratory to grow new connections based on information learned. In a robot, what possible mechanism could guide such growth?"
Self-reprogramming FPGAa perhaps? Dedicated genetic algorithm circuits which evaluate the behavior of the rest of a chip and reprogram it? Why do think this is so impossible? We may end up actually using biological processes for this "growth" anyway if/when we arrive at biological computing (DNA/molecular computing) etc. I fail to see what is so darn impossible about the process. It took evolution billions of years to produce us through random change...knowing this, I think we can definately speed that process up a bit to create AI.
"Lastly, we may indeed be relegated to second (or lower) place on the world's stage, in space and other fields."
Holy shit! You mean we'll be *like everybody else*, and *depend on others*? I wonder if our egos can handle it...
I'm not kidding...
Now DARPA can hook up with Greg!
"(Groundhogs day?)"
Oh please tell me you have not NOT seen Groundhog Day? It's a classic. Rent it now.
"Now put your little hand in mine..."
Aaron
Holy shit. Thank you.
Recently that manifest destiny is embodied in an absolutist definition of Progress. So instead of conquering the West, we now "conquer" the frontier of science, coming up with solutions for problems we never had in the first place, which in turn cause more problems which are handily solved by the next series of inventions....
There once was a lady who swallowed a fly...
Great, yeah, this sounds right:
...and...?
Patient: Jesus, I just broke my leg, please help me.
Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: Sure. Now, would you like us to resell your medical information?
Patient: Of course not!
Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: Ok, fill this out.
Patient: [fills out form]
Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: [waits with palm held out]
Patient:
Anonymous Unaccountable Medical Staff: You'll have to pay us <jigabucks> to NOT sell your info of course...well, you *could* walk to this other hospital...
Patient: I HAVE A BROKEN LEG!
Patient: [aside to the audience] Well, I'm fucked aren't I?
Audience: Yes
Patient: Fine you bastards! Here is your <jigabucks> I'll let you know I'm voting for <Candidate N%2> next time!
Collective Political System: [to self] har har. sucker.
Why do geeks do *anything*?
1) because they can
2) because they felt like it
I'm so sick of these "why are we doing this! whine!" questions. Nobody is forcing you to use C#.
I think I case could be made by the university that a wireless access point "extend the ResNet service beyond the area of their intended use" (whether or not they are actually being *USED* beyond the area of their intended use). Also, it is again *possible* that a WAP be used to provide access to someone outside of the Residence Halls community (even though this may not actually be occurring).
However, in their terms of service, they say the access is a "privelage" not a "right". That could probably be argued as long as *you* are paying for the services of the university - why should it not be a right?
So the response to an egregious tragedy is to retaliate with more egregious tragedy? I hope that vicious circle you live in is comfortable.
First Slashdotter: MS is coming out with a new "revolutionary" file system! *bash* *bash* *bash*
All Slashdotters: Burn it! Burn it!
Rational observer: Well, how do you know it's so bad?
First Slashdotter: Well, it's from...MS!
All Slashdotters: Yeah! Yeah! Burn it! Yeah!
"If you want software they wrote and they won't give it to you, find an alternative, write it yourself, anything else.."
The whole *point* is the avoid this vast duplication of effort. If a company has created something which has value to the public which it refuses to sell, and in fact is just going to dissolve, *why* shouldn't the public have access to it? How is this a silly or tragic law?
"But to claim that the Native Americans were pacifists to make your point is sheer idiocy."
Many (should I jump to conclusions and say "most"?) were, and I doubt even the worst could come close to what could only be described as the genocide ("ethnic cleansing"?) that all forms of Europeans visited on native peoples. It's not like all the native americans went over to Europe, slaughtered Europeans, banned and destroyed their cultures and languages and left them in ghettos scrabbling over the crumbs from the dominant society. Yes I realize that it is a Romantic notion itself to portray native americans as such helpless people, but the truth is many (again, should I say "majority"?) have been conquered and left destitute in utter heart breaking cruelty.
Does this mean we will now be celebrating "Admiral Zheng He Day" instead of "Columbus Day"? I can hardly wait to crack out the firecrackers and paper dragon!
The indeginous native americans who were living here the whole time you dolts.
With the amount that our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves, you would figure we could hook up a renewable energy generator to them...but NOOOooo...
A herd of anonymous cowards and email harvesters whooshing to the open relay...
Now, if we could just find achilles heel...
"Lowering the price of games for college students, for example, was a great approach! It'd be cool if one day your student ID could get you a discount on games."
Agh! I think this would be considered a horrible approach to those who are struggling to actually get *any work done* in college! Down CounterStrike, begone EverQuest!
Not to get you all confused, but Digital Mars is developing a language called D (eleet C haxxors need not comment on languages named D) which is somewhat of a cross between C++ and Java in syntax, and is a migration path away from C/C++. I'm an "enterprise" Java programmer by day, but D really impresses me...it seems to be the right step to get *general application development* off the mistake-prone and complicated C/C++ languages.
No it's not a practical suggestion (AFAIK the compiler is not fully complete and the syntax is still being refined), but it sure is interesting.
Check it out: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/
"My point is that "didn't pay corporate tax" is frequently presented as "contributes nothing to society", which is completely untrue."
Sooo...let's see: a corporation should be valued because of the tax revenue its products generate? How craven. Taxes are (supposedly) pay back (or forward) for the services and priveliges government provides. Corporations pay the government back for an infrastructure that supports the free market and various other legal entitlements peculiar to corporations (limited liability, yadda yadda IANAL). To turn the tables and now suck up to get tax revenue for the very priveliges the state has bestowed on the corporation is just servile and sickening. Unfortunately trading political favors/legislation for money is all too tempting. How about the energy fiasco where the government "sold" away energy at cost, just to buy it back at a much higher expense, with the difference being pure profit for the energy companies.
That said, yes, I believe there is a place for *both* free and proprietary software. But it's not as if our economy or way or life would crumble, or we would be visitied by the apocolypse if people started using free software. And *anyway* just because something is helping the economy does *not* make it the right thing to do! Slavery, for example, was great for the economy, that doesn't mean we should practice it.
'"Increasingly we will be writing on our computers like we write on paper," he said.'
No way! Welcome to the 3500 BC!