The only way to maintain freedom is to be tolerant of others. If something is to be outlawed than there better be some damn good logic behind it. Outlawing something because it turns your stomach is the first step on the road to totalitarianism. Butt out. Live and let live. Learn to see the different as blessing of your own individuality.
He believes that the best technical solution will win out, and he's doing his best to provide that best solution. He's wrong. Look around.
He believes in share and share alike. He just doesn't believe in defending it.
He believes that manufacturers' abuse of DRM technology is a problem but the thinks that changing the licence is a poor way to address that problem. As opposed to just ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
He believes in striking a balance between commercial and technical issues. I didn't know the two were in conflict.
These are all political positions. Uhhh.. no. They're not. At all. They're all a-political opinions. They're all "I don't think I have the right to tell other people to do the right thing" attitudes.
SpaceX believes that $500 per pound to orbit is achieveable http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=10. Assuming each of those 200000 people weighs an average of 150 lbs (and ignoring things like, oh, I dunno, air, water, food, and habitable space), his proposal would be expending $15,000,000,000 per day, forever, to keep the population of Earth at some optimal number. So, err, what do you think they're going to do when they're in space? Float around and wait for aide packages from Earth?
You're absolutely right that it costs a lot of money to get stuff off Earth. Thing about space is, there's so much resources up there for the taking that just about anyone who manages to "mine" just one asteroid, or crater on the Moon, or the atmosphere of a gas giant, is going to be rich beyond the ability of Earth's markets to measure.
The off-worlders will be so rich they can buy the services of anyone they need. And if they see a need to bring them into space, then they will. Seems a lot more likely that the whole Earth will be seen as a cheap source of labor, much as third world countries are seen by first world countries today. I think the term "first worlder" might become derogatory this century.
1. Fun. 2. A challenge. 3. A way to stick it to the man.
By "the man" I basically mean NASA. Billions of dollars. Thousands of engineers. Metric butt loads of paperwork. That's what you need to get people into space right? Bollocks! If 8 guys, one girl and an armadillo can put people into space using garage grown engineering, and on a part time basis, no less, then anyone can!
If Linus had used one of the many tools available at the time instead of ignoring them for his friend Larry's proprietary solution, the free tools would have quickly improved to meet the needs of the community. Instead, he snubbed the community and did his part to set back distributed revision control systems for years. And he's still doing it. In most every way bzr is superior to git but Linus refused to be a part of the community and toots his own horn instead. The result is projects like WINE who use git for revision control but don't have even slightly the same workflow as the Linux kernel, so they rampantly complain about contributions not being manageable (just try to contribute something to WINE and you'll see what I mean). Linus has no just wasted his own time by flirting with Bitkeeper and rolling his own solution (that is good for only his needs) but he's also wasted everyone else's time because, for some unknown reason, people keep listening to him.
It's like people who say "I have no interest in politics, I just want to [do whatever]". In Linus' case it is "write software". To many altruistic people it is "help people". To astronauts is "fly". The thing about politics is, even if you're not interested in it, it is interested in you. You either play the game or you bury your head in the sand. If you do, don't be surprised if you don't get to do what you want.
Dude, no. The problem in your country was that the majority of people felt inequality was wrong but the vocal minority wanted to maintain the status quo. If the majority of people had wanted to keep blacks oppressed the Klu Klux Klan would have taken control of the state and it would have been so.
Shame we've gotta wait a few more years for the AltSpace community to get some people into orbit. It'll be nice when we can say "going to space? That's something people do with garage-level engineering these days."
Assume that the major movie studios produced high-quality full-length first run downloadable movies with no DRM whatsoever at a reasonable prices. (You define what is reasonable.) Any DRM-less format you prefer. CSS = DRM-less already because it is so readily crackable. But ok, whatever.
How many of you would "share" then with your friends? (By "share" I don't mean watch the movies with friends. I mean make copies of the movies for friends.) If so, how many friends? Everyone who wants a copy and can convince me to put in the effort to make it for them (cause I aint lending it to ya, you bastards never bring it back).
Would you see anything wrong with posting your copy to an FTP site or the equivalent? No, but it would be an annoying upload time, and I doubt I'd get any benefit from it.
Would you see anything wrong sending copies to your closest 100 friends? I think, on average, every one of my DVDs has been copied about 3 times. TV episodes I've downloaded I've copied for friends a hell of a lot more because they don't know how to use P2P programs. It takes 10 minutes to make an ISO image of a DVD and another 10 minutes to burn each copy. So you're asking me if I could be bothered doing something that would take 16.8 hours.. and that's assuming they all come to my house to pick it up. Obviously the answer is no, I wouldn't do this, but I wouldn't see anything *wrong* with it.
Just curious. Fair enough. Perhaps you're curious why I feel I should be free to copy anything I want. Fundamentally, I feel that me being able to use my physical property (my copying devices and blank media) to do what I feel will benefit me and everyone else being able to do the same is a lot more important than some movie studio being able to tell everyone what they can and cant do. Basically, my local needs outweigh their remote needs. Clearly, my actions have no effect on their ability to make movies.. but I *suppose* if everyone was to do what I do then it might be a different story. Would this mean that the movie studios should get some special law that gives them control over what people can and cant copy? Of course not. It's a total sellout for the government to give away my freedom to them. If this was to mean that these movies weren't made, then boo fuckin' hoo. I'd rather there be less Hollywood movies and more freedom to copy than the situation we have today.
But my individual actions are not going to change that.
Of course, if you're doing what you say then you won't be giving people permission to redistribute the work.. so using the GPL would be pointless. If you don't want to do something that is pointless, you need to put the sample apps under the GPL + an exception for your libraries.
Meh. I think it's just evidence that these "terrorists" simply don't exist. The fact that so much "terror" can be generated by anyone with half a brain, and yet virtual none is, shows that the claim that there are people aiming to cause such is false.
Why is it ok to claim it is society's fault that men are more "inquisitive" than women but it's not ok to claim that, maybe, just maybe, men are *naturally* more inquisitive than women?
Slashdot Mirror
What are they resisting for?
The only way to maintain freedom is to be tolerant of others. If something is to be outlawed than there better be some damn good logic behind it. Outlawing something because it turns your stomach is the first step on the road to totalitarianism. Butt out. Live and let live. Learn to see the different as blessing of your own individuality.
1. Popularize conformity.
2. Ban altered states of mind.
The rest takes care of itself.
I'm going to remember you when the space "gold rush" starts.
You're absolutely right that it costs a lot of money to get stuff off Earth. Thing about space is, there's so much resources up there for the taking that just about anyone who manages to "mine" just one asteroid, or crater on the Moon, or the atmosphere of a gas giant, is going to be rich beyond the ability of Earth's markets to measure.
The off-worlders will be so rich they can buy the services of anyone they need. And if they see a need to bring them into space, then they will. Seems a lot more likely that the whole Earth will be seen as a cheap source of labor, much as third world countries are seen by first world countries today. I think the term "first worlder" might become derogatory this century.
I think Carmack is interested because it is:
1. Fun.
2. A challenge.
3. A way to stick it to the man.
By "the man" I basically mean NASA. Billions of dollars. Thousands of engineers. Metric butt loads of paperwork. That's what you need to get people into space right? Bollocks! If 8 guys, one girl and an armadillo can put people into space using garage grown engineering, and on a part time basis, no less, then anyone can!
As for making a profit, watch 'em.
If Linus had used one of the many tools available at the time instead of ignoring them for his friend Larry's proprietary solution, the free tools would have quickly improved to meet the needs of the community. Instead, he snubbed the community and did his part to set back distributed revision control systems for years. And he's still doing it. In most every way bzr is superior to git but Linus refused to be a part of the community and toots his own horn instead. The result is projects like WINE who use git for revision control but don't have even slightly the same workflow as the Linux kernel, so they rampantly complain about contributions not being manageable (just try to contribute something to WINE and you'll see what I mean). Linus has no just wasted his own time by flirting with Bitkeeper and rolling his own solution (that is good for only his needs) but he's also wasted everyone else's time because, for some unknown reason, people keep listening to him.
It also ignores history. Ask Motorola about the 68000 microprocessor sometime.
It's like people who say "I have no interest in politics, I just want to [do whatever]". In Linus' case it is "write software". To many altruistic people it is "help people". To astronauts is "fly". The thing about politics is, even if you're not interested in it, it is interested in you. You either play the game or you bury your head in the sand. If you do, don't be surprised if you don't get to do what you want.
Thus the lack of foresight comment. Thanks.
News at 11.
I wish I was there so I could punch Jared Lanier.
Smug doesn't begin to describe half the people who write for Edge.
Dude, no. The problem in your country was that the majority of people felt inequality was wrong but the vocal minority wanted to maintain the status quo. If the majority of people had wanted to keep blacks oppressed the Klu Klux Klan would have taken control of the state and it would have been so.
Shame we've gotta wait a few more years for the AltSpace community to get some people into orbit. It'll be nice when we can say "going to space? That's something people do with garage-level engineering these days."
Yes. I do oppose copyright in principle. And, as a separate issue, I oppose Linus' use of the GPL, as he doesn't believe in the principles behind it.
But my individual actions are not going to change that.
If the majority of people don't respect a law (and they don't) then that law is unjust.
Better than CD quality damn you. Oh, and a pony, I want a pony!
You can do anything you want.
Of course, if you're doing what you say then you won't be giving people permission to redistribute the work.. so using the GPL would be pointless. If you don't want to do something that is pointless, you need to put the sample apps under the GPL + an exception for your libraries.
Meh. I think it's just evidence that these "terrorists" simply don't exist. The fact that so much "terror" can be generated by anyone with half a brain, and yet virtual none is, shows that the claim that there are people aiming to cause such is false.
Freedom's a scary concept to some people.
Uhhh.. he said it, not me.
I was just asking why it is ok to claim that it society is the cause (if it were true) and not just a result of men and women being different.
Anyway, try to stop insulting people who have different opinions from you.
Why is it ok to claim it is society's fault that men are more "inquisitive" than women but it's not ok to claim that, maybe, just maybe, men are *naturally* more inquisitive than women?