Jonathan Schwartz is an incompetent boob. I really hope the Sun board get some worth out of him because when it comes to open source issues he doesn't have a clue. My most favourite quote:
This is from the COO of Sun Microsystems. You know, the creators of SunOS 4.0.2, which ran on x86 hardware back in 1989? 2 years before Linus even thought about writing a kernel? That's just blatant incompetence. The board should give him a gag order.
No. I really am that cynical. People buy fast food cause they want to pay little and eat fast. They're fat and lazy and don't care if they get bad service and bad health. You obviously do care, so feel free not to participate in the fast food epidemic, but the rest of the population will gladly continuing buying terrible food prepared by wage slaves. How does this relate to robots? Well your theory is that for some reason corporations will replace the employees with robots because they do a better job. I'm telling you that they will do no such thing because they don't care how shit a job their employees do.
blah, it's slightly cooler than that. The images are being dynamically resized. You can actually see in-between frames where the images are in different degrees of magnification. But hey, it is just a stupid trick, nothing to get excited about.
What I'm saying is that millions and millions of us go to fast food places every day, get shit service, and just don't care. So why the hell should the fast food industry give a shit that you can't get with the program?
Well, as far as I'm aware no-one has made a spinning space station. It's science fiction. Maybe that's just cause you need a really big wheel and that's a lot of mass to put up there. I've read there's other issues too, although at the moment I'm only remembering issues with the balance systems of humans.
Needless to say, if spinning space stations was a practical solution we would be seeing spinning space stations in orbit.
A lot more than $100 billion has gone into propulsion research over the years. We simply don't know how to make better rockets. We have some ideas. Like fusion rockets. But they require breakthroughs (like fusion) for which we've spent even more money on.
I said colonisation, not exploration. Besides which, if we had a manned base on Mars we could do a millions times as much science as we can by sending robots.
Sigh. No-one who has stayed in space for longer than 12 months has ever been fit to perform the kind of mission that we'd need them to perform when they got to Mars. People who live in space for 12 months can't even sit up when they get back into gravity. When we can actually do that, and feed them, and keep them safe from radiation (remember, the ISS is inside the earth's magnetic field) then we'll be ready for a trip to Mars. Now, obviously, if we keep putting off the research needed to make us ready, we'll never be ready will we?
So what you're saying is that because you're a big cry baby people are going to shell out billions of dollars in research to produce robots that are magically going to be more reliable.
It's the first discovery of a moon around Saturn that has an atmosphere by the Cassini probe. There's 30+ moons around Saturn and the probe has just begun its mission. It's quite possible that it will find more and more moons with atmospheres.
and all the research that needs to be done to make living in space actually possible is going to happen where? Frankly, if we're ever going to go to Mars, we need to learn how to live in space for extended periods of time. Even with our best propulsion systems it will take at least 18 months to get to Mars. During that time astronauts need to live in the ship. That makes your space ship a space station. So how in the world are we supposed to build a self sustaining space station that we can fly to another planet if we can't even sustain one in low earth orbit?
Excluding the creation of some buck rodgers form of space propulsion the ISS is the best bet we've got for space colonisation.
Umm no. It costs a shitload more money to automate the FF industry than it does to hire untrained labor. There's an endless supply of 16 year old kids, why would you want to put a significant investment into making robots that you then need to maintain.
Friends of mine used to run a coffee shop. You were given 10 minutes to sit at a table without a drink. Then someone would come collect your cup and ask "would you like another?" You were, of course, permitted to say no. You were then given another 10 minutes, and someone would again come to the table and ask "can I get you anything?" Again, you're permitted to say no. 10 more minutes and the waiter would return to the table and state "I'm sorry, if I can't get you anything I'm going to have to ask you to leave." And that got rid of the lurkers.
No, I wasn't saying you were liable for bad encoding made by someone else. That is, unless there's a way to encode a wav so that an mp3 created from that wav would damage an mp3 player, which seems pretty unlikely.
Wow, there's almost a good suggestion in that biased review. He wonders why K3b hasn't been ported to Windows. Presumably it is because writing to a CD/DVD on Windows is completely different to Linux. Or simply because the developers of K3b don't care about Windows.
That doesn't actually mean anything. The copyright notice can be in the name of the author and the author can still have handed their rights over to the company. It's a contractional obligation. I don't know what kind of books the woman wrote, probably novels.
So I think it's fair to summarise your reply to my questions as "I don't care". Which is a good reason why the creators of the Creative Commons licenses should not be advocating their non-commercial licenses as they do care about free culture, that's why they put together the licenses.
The ACCC should have forced Sony to make a PS2 that had no copy control in it. They should also force the same on Xbox and DVD playing devices. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, our consumer watchdog agency intervened in the PS2 mod chipping case stating that mod chipping must be legal as without it Australians can't by games from overseas to play on our PS2. As most games are released overseas before they are released here and games are often priced hirer here than they are to import, the ACCC ruled this was an artificial trade barrier.
They should have taken a harder stance, now we're gunna get fucked over by the stupid trade agreement.
I've already posted this but the other person I mentioned it to didn't respond so I'll ask you. If people are free to remix your stuff with their stuff, that means that they have to release their stuff under the non-commercial license too. Now multiply that by about a thousand times. How in the hell is anyone going to be able to track down every person (including you) who contributed to that creation so they can do something commercial with it? Simply put, they can't. That means this entire free culture that you've created by releasing your work so others can remix it will remain in the realm of hobbists.
If we're talking about music, it means no-one can run a Free Culture Rave which charges admission to cover costs because it is commercial. It means that your local radio station can't play Free Culture music because they also sell ad space.
If we're talking about images it means that no-one can make a documentary about free culture, or, if they do, they can't have it shown on tv or in a cinema.
There's a large part of our world that isn't commercial but there's an even larger part that is. By releasing your work with these restrictions you're cutting people out for the sole reason that you think you're missing out on a buck.
I think the disconnect is that you're claiming the copyright is what makes your liable. It isn't.
Say you take some song that you are not the copyright holder of, encode it onto an LP and sell it to me at a raffle. I take it home and put it on my vintage record player (aint they all vintage now?) and it not only breaks the needle it sets my house on fire and kills my dog. You are liable. It doesn't matter about the copyright.
There's a blatant and obvious way you can make it so you aint liable: disclaim your responsibility and make me accept this as a contract when you sell me the LP.
If you were the copyright holders of the song you have an even better way to disclaim responsibility, put it in the license for the song and now I have no right to listen to the LP without accepting that I can't sue you for damages. (Actually I have no idea on that one, I don't think any court has ruled that an LP player is actually "copying" an LP, but for computers playing mp3s they have.. which is just stupidity++).
In any case, it's your negligence that makes you liable. You should have put that LP together right. If you, the person who is putting a work into the public domain, are responsible for that negligence then you are the one who is liable, regardless of how many hands the work has gone through before it gets to the person who suffered the damages.
I heard a woman talking at one of RMS' presentations who said the best she had ever got out of a publisher was that they agreed to license her rights back to her if she handed over her rights. That's it. Otherwise they're not interested in publishing it.
Well actually, we were talking about the "public domain" for which a playground is one example.
Software can, and does "blow up" and destroy things. So does legal advice. So does medical advice. These are all things for which people have been sued for damages caused.
Obviously introducing the action of nefarious copying does not add weight to your argument that even though a poorly constructed mp3 could potentially damage mp3 playing hardware, the legal creator of that mp3 could not be sued for damages. Is the problem simply one of the virtual vs the physical? Would you feel better if we were talking about a poorly constructed LP?
Besides, clearly, the unlawful creator of something is more liable than a legal creator as the legal creator can legally disclaim responsibility, an unlawful creator cannot.
And no, again, copyright covers the embodyment of an idea, which is called a "work". You can't copyright the idea of a favourable song about the south of the United States of America that makes reference to an unfavourable song about the south of the United States of Amercia. All you can do is copyright your particular embodyment of that idea. We used to talk about "physically embodying" the idea on paper or on a record, but now, with the advent of computers, that isn't accurate.
Maybe I confused you. Sorry. I was more trying to make a libertarian copyright-is-bad argument than a CC is bad argument in that post. I just don't like the way people state things so they sound reasonable when they really mean something that isn't reasonable. "We're just protecting our investment." is a common one. No-one is denying you have a right to protect your investment, it's simply how some people protect their investment that is unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
This is from the COO of Sun Microsystems. You know, the creators of SunOS 4.0.2, which ran on x86 hardware back in 1989? 2 years before Linus even thought about writing a kernel? That's just blatant incompetence. The board should give him a gag order.
No. I really am that cynical. People buy fast food cause they want to pay little and eat fast. They're fat and lazy and don't care if they get bad service and bad health. You obviously do care, so feel free not to participate in the fast food epidemic, but the rest of the population will gladly continuing buying terrible food prepared by wage slaves. How does this relate to robots? Well your theory is that for some reason corporations will replace the employees with robots because they do a better job. I'm telling you that they will do no such thing because they don't care how shit a job their employees do.
blah, it's slightly cooler than that. The images are being dynamically resized. You can actually see in-between frames where the images are in different degrees of magnification. But hey, it is just a stupid trick, nothing to get excited about.
What I'm saying is that millions and millions of us go to fast food places every day, get shit service, and just don't care. So why the hell should the fast food industry give a shit that you can't get with the program?
Needless to say, if spinning space stations was a practical solution we would be seeing spinning space stations in orbit.
A lot more than $100 billion has gone into propulsion research over the years. We simply don't know how to make better rockets. We have some ideas. Like fusion rockets. But they require breakthroughs (like fusion) for which we've spent even more money on.
I said colonisation, not exploration. Besides which, if we had a manned base on Mars we could do a millions times as much science as we can by sending robots.
Sigh. No-one who has stayed in space for longer than 12 months has ever been fit to perform the kind of mission that we'd need them to perform when they got to Mars. People who live in space for 12 months can't even sit up when they get back into gravity. When we can actually do that, and feed them, and keep them safe from radiation (remember, the ISS is inside the earth's magnetic field) then we'll be ready for a trip to Mars. Now, obviously, if we keep putting off the research needed to make us ready, we'll never be ready will we?
very nice. Thanks for the link.
So what you're saying is that because you're a big cry baby people are going to shell out billions of dollars in research to produce robots that are magically going to be more reliable.
It's the first discovery of a moon around Saturn that has an atmosphere by the Cassini probe. There's 30+ moons around Saturn and the probe has just begun its mission. It's quite possible that it will find more and more moons with atmospheres.
Excluding the creation of some buck rodgers form of space propulsion the ISS is the best bet we've got for space colonisation.
Umm no. It costs a shitload more money to automate the FF industry than it does to hire untrained labor. There's an endless supply of 16 year old kids, why would you want to put a significant investment into making robots that you then need to maintain.
Friends of mine used to run a coffee shop. You were given 10 minutes to sit at a table without a drink. Then someone would come collect your cup and ask "would you like another?" You were, of course, permitted to say no. You were then given another 10 minutes, and someone would again come to the table and ask "can I get you anything?" Again, you're permitted to say no. 10 more minutes and the waiter would return to the table and state "I'm sorry, if I can't get you anything I'm going to have to ask you to leave." And that got rid of the lurkers.
No, I wasn't saying you were liable for bad encoding made by someone else. That is, unless there's a way to encode a wav so that an mp3 created from that wav would damage an mp3 player, which seems pretty unlikely.
Wow, there's almost a good suggestion in that biased review. He wonders why K3b hasn't been ported to Windows. Presumably it is because writing to a CD/DVD on Windows is completely different to Linux. Or simply because the developers of K3b don't care about Windows.
That doesn't actually mean anything. The copyright notice can be in the name of the author and the author can still have handed their rights over to the company. It's a contractional obligation. I don't know what kind of books the woman wrote, probably novels.
Agreed. Riots in the ghettos do make me wish I was back in Brisbane though.
Thank you for answering honestly.
The ACCC should have forced Sony to make a PS2 that had no copy control in it. They should also force the same on Xbox and DVD playing devices. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, our consumer watchdog agency intervened in the PS2 mod chipping case stating that mod chipping must be legal as without it Australians can't by games from overseas to play on our PS2. As most games are released overseas before they are released here and games are often priced hirer here than they are to import, the ACCC ruled this was an artificial trade barrier.
They should have taken a harder stance, now we're gunna get fucked over by the stupid trade agreement.
If we're talking about music, it means no-one can run a Free Culture Rave which charges admission to cover costs because it is commercial. It means that your local radio station can't play Free Culture music because they also sell ad space.
If we're talking about images it means that no-one can make a documentary about free culture, or, if they do, they can't have it shown on tv or in a cinema.
There's a large part of our world that isn't commercial but there's an even larger part that is. By releasing your work with these restrictions you're cutting people out for the sole reason that you think you're missing out on a buck.
Say you take some song that you are not the copyright holder of, encode it onto an LP and sell it to me at a raffle. I take it home and put it on my vintage record player (aint they all vintage now?) and it not only breaks the needle it sets my house on fire and kills my dog. You are liable. It doesn't matter about the copyright.
There's a blatant and obvious way you can make it so you aint liable: disclaim your responsibility and make me accept this as a contract when you sell me the LP.
If you were the copyright holders of the song you have an even better way to disclaim responsibility, put it in the license for the song and now I have no right to listen to the LP without accepting that I can't sue you for damages. (Actually I have no idea on that one, I don't think any court has ruled that an LP player is actually "copying" an LP, but for computers playing mp3s they have.. which is just stupidity++).
In any case, it's your negligence that makes you liable. You should have put that LP together right. If you, the person who is putting a work into the public domain, are responsible for that negligence then you are the one who is liable, regardless of how many hands the work has gone through before it gets to the person who suffered the damages.
I heard a woman talking at one of RMS' presentations who said the best she had ever got out of a publisher was that they agreed to license her rights back to her if she handed over her rights. That's it. Otherwise they're not interested in publishing it.
Reverse again.
Well actually, we were talking about the "public domain" for which a playground is one example.
Software can, and does "blow up" and destroy things. So does legal advice. So does medical advice. These are all things for which people have been sued for damages caused.
Obviously introducing the action of nefarious copying does not add weight to your argument that even though a poorly constructed mp3 could potentially damage mp3 playing hardware, the legal creator of that mp3 could not be sued for damages.
Is the problem simply one of the virtual vs the physical? Would you feel better if we were talking about a poorly constructed LP?
Besides, clearly, the unlawful creator of something is more liable than a legal creator as the legal creator can legally disclaim responsibility, an unlawful creator cannot.
And no, again, copyright covers the embodyment of an idea, which is called a "work". You can't copyright the idea of a favourable song about the south of the United States of America that makes reference to an unfavourable song about the south of the United States of Amercia. All you can do is copyright your particular embodyment of that idea. We used to talk about "physically embodying" the idea on paper or on a record, but now, with the advent of computers, that isn't accurate.
Maybe I confused you. Sorry. I was more trying to make a libertarian copyright-is-bad argument than a CC is bad argument in that post. I just don't like the way people state things so they sound reasonable when they really mean something that isn't reasonable. "We're just protecting our investment." is a common one. No-one is denying you have a right to protect your investment, it's simply how some people protect their investment that is unacceptable.