We're already seeing a flavor of "p2p" in all this distributed computing stuff (Seti@home, Distributed.net, Folding@home), as well as instant messaging. Of course it wasn't called "p2p" until the p2p hype hit (usually when hype about some amazing new paradigm hits, everything on earth is recast under that paradigm...hell, Slashdot is p2p!). The legitimate uses so far have been harnessing idle computer resources, communications, and storing stuff other people don't want you to store (the very nature of which makes such a system difficult to use). But if I inhale on the P2P pipe, I can envision many different uses (many of which were promised by "agents").
I may or may not actually pay for content (that might be an a per-article/per-item basis)...but I can definately see myself as paying to explicitly NOT see any ads.
"A better analogy would be if I had a sign on my door"
Well, there is no way to put a "sign on your door". Either your shares are world-readable, or they are not readable at all (at least if you are using default windows sharing, and are not part of an NT domain, etc. Most home users aren't of course). It *is* more like just leaving your door open. Maybe you don't care who comes in, or maybe you just intend to leave it open for a certain person...but in most cases I'd expect someone to be hesitant to just waltzing in. This has *nothing* to do with theft. You can read my diary and it is not theft - that doesn't mean I wanted you to read it!
So:
1) Windows has crappy file sharing mechanism
2) ShareSniffer is at best an unscrupulous company jumping on the P2P hype bandwagon. You can *already* do what ShareSniffer claims (P2P) by using public WINS servers.
Why would RIAA want Napster to make them billions when they can make N*billions themselves by knocking Napster out of the picture?
Re:Does no one here have respect for language?
on
Uplifting Dolphins
·
· Score: 2
AFAIK, all "language" is not made equal. For instance, elephants, dolphins, and apes all definately communicate in some manner, this stuff *is* hardwired...but it simply isn't the verbal "language" we are accustomed to. They're not teaching dolphins to speak English, they are just piggy backing on the dolphin's natural communication methods, to try to communicate with them. While it would be great (and perhaps impossible as you say) to teach animals human language, we can certainly at least try to communicate in the first place. That's all that's trying to be done. We're not sending these animals to Harvard for a literary degree.
Games are not very well suited for the open source/free software model. They are *very* specific, they entail a lot of art, etc., things that would otherwise be considered IP, and require a lot of development over a short period of time, after which they are blessed "finished" and never (hardly ever) thought about again. The only exception is in cases of very general "engines" (Crystal Space?), which can be reused over and over, and contributed to over time. However, I think these will still always be behind the behind-closed-doors-with-truckloads-of-coke type games.
In short: all you open source hipsters riding the wave...take that fat wad of cash you get from twiddling with your Linux boxes and spend some of it on Linux games (even if they are made by proprietary companies...Microsoft excluded;).
I don't know...I (and about everybody else on earth) play FPSs with a mouse...but back in the day I somehow managed to play Wolf3D and Doom without a mouse, just using arrow keys. There is no way I can do that these days...
That's it. From now on, I am absolutely checking under *every* footbridge I come accross, for thousands of dollars hidden in inconspicuous heaps of trash.
I have a *cuh-razy* thought here: maybe if our governments didn't keep so many "secrets", people wouldn't die either trying to find them out, or giving them away to other governments. Oh wait, what am I thinking. The government *needs* to use our money to develop secret stuff so that we can be safe from all those other governments developing secret stuff.
"where you must control a (naturally or artificially) scarce resource in order to make money and mantain an advantage against your competitors."
*within the bounds of law*. It doesn't mean they have a free pass to do *anything* they want to make profit. If they want to link to Linux to provide some extra value for their customers but *don't* want to accept the license terms of Linux...well, there's a word for that: tough!
How is this different from any other license (other than it is untested in court and with a sufficient amount of money and evil, there is the possibility it could be invalidated)? My question is, could they just create their own LGPL libraries as a shim and thereby skirt the whole issue? Hows does glibc get away with linking to the kernel, but remaining LGPL, not GPL? Or does it not link to the kernel???
GPL doesn't destroy IP (author's maintain their copyright), it just destroys authors' ability to exert singular dominion over that property. So they still "own" or at least have originated, the source, they just cannot horde it. Property laws were written when it was obvious that no item could be simultaneously and exclusively owned or used by more than one person. With the advent of computing, product becomes a lot more like ideas, in that they are infinitely reproducably and non-appropriable, than like physical items. Hopefully it's just a matter of banging enough clue into lawmakers. It's not about what's fair (as Bill Joy is concerned), it's about what *IS*. Once we define what digital/intellectual property is, then we can start creating new solutions to the old fairness question (tackled in original patentsand copyright law). Un/Fortunately this will make some markets based on scarcity evaporate. ("Gutenberg, stop immediately! Do you realize what the printing press will do!?? People won't be beholden to a select few for their information and education! Terrible!")
You DON'T want RAR for stream compression...well, at least not "solid" RAR archives. LZ78 (or whatever zip uses) is just fine for text, which is what xml is. Please, not Yet Another Cross Platform Standard For Something Or Other.
So can we expect that star trek has finally finished it's slow and painful devolution into yet another soap opera? STNG was the last decent star trek series.
On the news the other day they were describing a compony which would perform cloning for a fee. Potential clients included people who wanted dead loved ones "recreated". I think that is the type of stuff we need to analyze. Imagine, growing up, and living your whole life, knowing that you are not anybody's "child", but merely supposed to be a duplication of someone else's loved one, for their own amusement. I think that would really screw a person up and lead to all sorts of identity problems. Also how would it feel to be the reincarnation of a historical figure?
Slashdot Mirror
We're already seeing a flavor of "p2p" in all this distributed computing stuff (Seti@home, Distributed.net, Folding@home), as well as instant messaging. Of course it wasn't called "p2p" until the p2p hype hit (usually when hype about some amazing new paradigm hits, everything on earth is recast under that paradigm...hell, Slashdot is p2p!). The legitimate uses so far have been harnessing idle computer resources, communications, and storing stuff other people don't want you to store (the very nature of which makes such a system difficult to use). But if I inhale on the P2P pipe, I can envision many different uses (many of which were promised by "agents").
I suggest we get scientists on the job, sniffing for other important particles:
* unobtainos
* ridiculons
* ephemerons
* bozons
* ludicrons
* phantos
* ethereons
* cowboyneal
I can't wait another day to find out if I am eating empty calories or carcinogens with every meal.
(removed tongue from cheek...hey I have karma to burn)
"Because N*Sync sucks and might not actually make billions once people realize what crap they (and other bands like them) are?"
Well, the suger-addled, gogurt-slurping, glue-sniffing teeny boppers, their target demographic, certainly doesn't appear to be clued in yet...
Haha...I love that horse on Ren and Stimpy!
Don't you dare moderate me off-topic...
I may or may not actually pay for content (that might be an a per-article/per-item basis)...but I can definately see myself as paying to explicitly NOT see any ads.
*Ha* *Ha*
"A better analogy would be if I had a sign on my door"
Well, there is no way to put a "sign on your door". Either your shares are world-readable, or they are not readable at all (at least if you are using default windows sharing, and are not part of an NT domain, etc. Most home users aren't of course). It *is* more like just leaving your door open. Maybe you don't care who comes in, or maybe you just intend to leave it open for a certain person...but in most cases I'd expect someone to be hesitant to just waltzing in. This has *nothing* to do with theft. You can read my diary and it is not theft - that doesn't mean I wanted you to read it!
So:
1) Windows has crappy file sharing mechanism
2) ShareSniffer is at best an unscrupulous company jumping on the P2P hype bandwagon. You can *already* do what ShareSniffer claims (P2P) by using public WINS servers.
Why would RIAA want Napster to make them billions when they can make N*billions themselves by knocking Napster out of the picture?
AFAIK, all "language" is not made equal. For instance, elephants, dolphins, and apes all definately communicate in some manner, this stuff *is* hardwired...but it simply isn't the verbal "language" we are accustomed to. They're not teaching dolphins to speak English, they are just piggy backing on the dolphin's natural communication methods, to try to communicate with them. While it would be great (and perhaps impossible as you say) to teach animals human language, we can certainly at least try to communicate in the first place. That's all that's trying to be done. We're not sending these animals to Harvard for a literary degree.
Games are not very well suited for the open source /free software model. They are *very* specific, they entail a lot of art, etc., things that would otherwise be considered IP, and require a lot of development over a short period of time, after which they are blessed "finished" and never (hardly ever) thought about again. The only exception is in cases of very general "engines" (Crystal Space?), which can be reused over and over, and contributed to over time. However, I think these will still always be behind the behind-closed-doors-with-truckloads-of-coke type games.
;).
In short: all you open source hipsters riding the wave...take that fat wad of cash you get from twiddling with your Linux boxes and spend some of it on Linux games (even if they are made by proprietary companies...Microsoft excluded
I don't know...I (and about everybody else on earth) play FPSs with a mouse...but back in the day I somehow managed to play Wolf3D and Doom without a mouse, just using arrow keys. There is no way I can do that these days...
...white tape, tacks, garbage bags, and floppy disks don't commit espionage - spies do.
That's it. From now on, I am absolutely checking under *every* footbridge I come accross, for thousands of dollars hidden in inconspicuous heaps of trash.
5) Oh yeah, use Spam Mimic to encode your messages. Nobody will ever catch you. But you might just be sued and thrown in jail.
So then that would make companies who are trying to patent genes both criminal and blasphemous ;)
I have a *cuh-razy* thought here: maybe if our governments didn't keep so many "secrets", people wouldn't die either trying to find them out, or giving them away to other governments. Oh wait, what am I thinking. The government *needs* to use our money to develop secret stuff so that we can be safe from all those other governments developing secret stuff.
"where you must control a (naturally or artificially) scarce resource in order to make money and mantain an advantage against your competitors."
*within the bounds of law*. It doesn't mean they have a free pass to do *anything* they want to make profit. If they want to link to Linux to provide some extra value for their customers but *don't* want to accept the license terms of Linux...well, there's a word for that: tough!
How is this different from any other license (other than it is untested in court and with a sufficient amount of money and evil, there is the possibility it could be invalidated)? My question is, could they just create their own LGPL libraries as a shim and thereby skirt the whole issue? Hows does glibc get away with linking to the kernel, but remaining LGPL, not GPL? Or does it not link to the kernel???
GPL doesn't destroy IP (author's maintain their copyright), it just destroys authors' ability to exert singular dominion over that property. So they still "own" or at least have originated, the source, they just cannot horde it. Property laws were written when it was obvious that no item could be simultaneously and exclusively owned or used by more than one person. With the advent of computing, product becomes a lot more like ideas, in that they are infinitely reproducably and non-appropriable, than like physical items. Hopefully it's just a matter of banging enough clue into lawmakers. It's not about what's fair (as Bill Joy is concerned), it's about what *IS*. Once we define what digital/intellectual property is, then we can start creating new solutions to the old fairness question (tackled in original patentsand copyright law). Un/Fortunately this will make some markets based on scarcity evaporate. ("Gutenberg, stop immediately! Do you realize what the printing press will do!?? People won't be beholden to a select few for their information and education! Terrible!")
You DON'T want RAR for stream compression...well, at least not "solid" RAR archives. LZ78 (or whatever zip uses) is just fine for text, which is what xml is. Please, not Yet Another Cross Platform Standard For Something Or Other.
I'm sorry guys...I've been getting Open Magazine for free even though I'm not in a position to actually buy any of the advertiser's products.
No silly...it's run by a computer generated *hologram* that for all intents and purposes appears to be a normal person. Sheesh.
So can we expect that star trek has finally finished it's slow and painful devolution into yet another soap opera? STNG was the last decent star trek series.
On the news the other day they were describing a compony which would perform cloning for a fee. Potential clients included people who wanted dead loved ones "recreated". I think that is the type of stuff we need to analyze. Imagine, growing up, and living your whole life, knowing that you are not anybody's "child", but merely supposed to be a duplication of someone else's loved one, for their own amusement. I think that would really screw a person up and lead to all sorts of identity problems. Also how would it feel to be the reincarnation of a historical figure?
AFAIK, this is not a copyright issue. It's a *trademark* issue. Spare the juvenile flames.
...or because they get their room free...