Really, if he doesn't look like a Cyberdemon, who cares?
;)
"raw footage" isn't the "source", it's the script
on
Open Source... Television?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you're going to release the real "source" for a TV production, it's not the footage, it's the script (or your original ideas).
For example, in the world of theatre, you can write a play, and it can be done by any number of people or theatre companies, but the play itself doesn't change. The actors (and location, and props, etc.) are the "hardware" on which the "software" of the play "runs". (Sorry for all those "quotes"!)
You could release a play under the GPL - people would have the right to alter it as they saw fit, as long as their version was modifiable as well.
Of course, the difference is that, with computers, you ideally get identical results with the same software on different hardware, but with the hardware being different people in different places, your play is always going to produce different results. I suppose it would be a better analogy to say that the "software" in the case of theatre accepts variables which can change the outcome.
With TV (or movies), you're just recording an iteration of the software on a given set of hardware and variables.
If it's not a straightforward production with a script, then it's the ideas behind the production that are the software.
Say, for example, that you're a director, and you have this great idea for a sequence of video segments that would be really cool and amazing and everything. You try it out - you get some people together (if required) and film it, and make your little montage or music video or whatever. Your ideas are the software, and you and everything else involved is the hardware. If you don't like the way it runs (the final result), you reconsider your ideas and try again - like fixing bugs or altering features.
Ultimately, if you're going to record an iteration of your software, it's great to make the "raw footage" of that recording "open" to everyone, but you should make your ideas open, as well. Say that anyone can use your idea so long as when anyone else uses your idea to produce something, their production is open as well, and they don't claim the idea as their own...
Well, really I just think scripts should be GPL'd, and this is my reasoning, and this was a convenient article on which to vent about it.
Down with starving actors having to pay royalties to scriptwriters just to put on a production!
I don't mean this negatively; I'm sure you're right since it's just another TV show. I'm genuinely curious as to what sorts of facts or "unobtainalbe" things you're talking about...
"Digital technology is to data what mass cheap produced energy available through a socket in your home is to the local cart and coal merchant. They know the game is up. Their distribution model is dead. And they're just buying themselves some time."
Perhaps - though I think your analogy is flawed. I would think they would have a long life ahead of them if they wanted to become the purveyers of digital technology, much like the electric company is the purveyor of that mass produced energy, which you acknowledge is cheap, but not free...
But I think you're right in that they haven't realized this, and they are trying to force the old model onto the new world. Which will fail...
But we found out about Enron
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 1
As long as they can keep their actions under wraps, and the citizenry doesn't know about it, it's OK. The problem with Enron is that it failed and everybody found out.
While I agree with you, one could argue that if his predictions for the next 20-30 years are correct in re: AI vs Human intelligence (AIs/Robots becoming incredibly intelligent and surpassing humans), then you might interpret predictions like Time travel, Machine dictator, Faster than light travel, etc., as having been invented by the Machines and not Humans.
Just because technology is predicted doesn't necessarily mean it would be we who invented it...
Unless we become complete masters over whatever it is that makes up the "mind", most likely the first such experience would copy the state of the mind, and all you'd end up with would be a mind-copy that also happens to be in a coma...
Kinda like if you have a Windows machine where the hard drive is screwed up such that it blue screens every time you want to boot it up. Just making a copy of the HD wouldn't fix the problem; you'd have to fix it somehow.
Re:Brain Emulation no longer a hardware challenge.
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention the continuity problem - If you upload Bob's mind into a computer, what about the orignal, "real" Bob? Is he still alive and well? If so, are there now two Bobs? I would say no. The original is still Bob, but the copy is just a copy. If the copy is truly intelligent and individual and autonomous, it will continue to develop and evolve just as Bob will.
Basically, you'd have the equivalent of biological identical twins, except starting from a later date than birth. The moment the copy begins to "run" or exist, it begins to accumulate different experiences, a different history and personality, from the original.
If the original is dead or dies (ceases to exist) at the time of the copy, you might see unbroken continuity there, and the copy-Bob (Bob2?) would be the same entity, as far as he is concerned...
But I would still say it is different, and not the same.
There's a huge infrastructure set up around MP3s. The most obvious thing for me (and probably tons of other Windows-based MP3 users) is the ID3-tag on most MP3s. I rely heavily on this for indexing my huge collection of MP3s, and I have about 3-4 software programs that use it, and without which I'd be back in the dark ages. One is an extension to the windows shell that adds a page to the properties for MP3s, where I can edit the ID3 tag. It also provides different icons depending on the bitrates of the files.
There's also MPTagger which lets me easily rename files any way I want based on the ID3 tags, or set ID3 tags based on the filenames.
And most importantly, there's my "MP3 Collection" database, which indexes all my MP3s by the ID3 tags.
when all that stuff supports Ogg, then it will be reasonable for me to use, but without it, it's a format that I admire, but it's like giving me a new car with excellent gas milage, but no windows, weak breaks, horrible steering, and hard, bumpy seats. I'd admire the engine, but wish it were a lot more user-friendly...
OK, Since I'm the only one listening to my own audio files, and if others want music from me, having my files in Ogg will encourage them to support Ogg a little, I'm perfectly willing to start using Ogg - even re-encode all my CDs to Ogg.
Except for one thing - Is there an ID3-tag equivalent for Ogg? And will MP3-database programs support it? Because I've become highly dependent on the data stored in my ID3 tags and the indexing capabilities inherent therein.
So until there's some sort of ID3v2 standard for Ogg Vorbis, I won't be switching, because without it, Ogg files are just as nameless and faceless as any other miscellaneous file - I hate relying on file names. Replace MPTagger with an OggTagger, and MP3-ext with an Ogg-ext, with different icons for the different bitrates, and my MP3 Collector indexing database, and my windows desktop and human habits will be satisfied.
Slashdot Mirror
Quoth Prince:
"Oh, if a man is considered guilty 4 what goes on in his mind
Then give me the electric chair 4 all my future crimes, oh!"
That's "+5 Informative" ??! No it's not!
:P
If that's +5 Informative, then this is +5 Insightful!
I don't know why they don't have the demo available on their web site, but there definitely is a demo version of gobeProductive.
You can find it over on Tucows
Really, if he doesn't look like a Cyberdemon, who cares?
;)
If you're going to release the real "source" for a TV production, it's not the footage, it's the script (or your original ideas).
For example, in the world of theatre, you can write a play, and it can be done by any number of people or theatre companies, but the play itself doesn't change. The actors (and location, and props, etc.) are the "hardware" on which the "software" of the play "runs". (Sorry for all those "quotes"!)
You could release a play under the GPL - people would have the right to alter it as they saw fit, as long as their version was modifiable as well.
Of course, the difference is that, with computers, you ideally get identical results with the same software on different hardware, but with the hardware being different people in different places, your play is always going to produce different results. I suppose it would be a better analogy to say that the "software" in the case of theatre accepts variables which can change the outcome.
With TV (or movies), you're just recording an iteration of the software on a given set of hardware and variables.
If it's not a straightforward production with a script, then it's the ideas behind the production that are the software.
Say, for example, that you're a director, and you have this great idea for a sequence of video segments that would be really cool and amazing and everything. You try it out - you get some people together (if required) and film it, and make your little montage or music video or whatever. Your ideas are the software, and you and everything else involved is the hardware. If you don't like the way it runs (the final result), you reconsider your ideas and try again - like fixing bugs or altering features.
Ultimately, if you're going to record an iteration of your software, it's great to make the "raw footage" of that recording "open" to everyone, but you should make your ideas open, as well. Say that anyone can use your idea so long as when anyone else uses your idea to produce something, their production is open as well, and they don't claim the idea as their own...
Well, really I just think scripts should be GPL'd, and this is my reasoning, and this was a convenient article on which to vent about it.
Down with starving actors having to pay royalties to scriptwriters just to put on a production!
"but how do the scriptwriters make money?"
Duh! They act as well! Just like Shakespeare...
I don't mean this negatively; I'm sure you're right since it's just another TV show. I'm genuinely curious as to what sorts of facts or "unobtainalbe" things you're talking about...
Perhaps - though I think your analogy is flawed. I would think they would have a long life ahead of them if they wanted to become the purveyers of digital technology, much like the electric company is the purveyor of that mass produced energy, which you acknowledge is cheap, but not free...
But I think you're right in that they haven't realized this, and they are trying to force the old model onto the new world. Which will fail...
As long as they can keep their actions under wraps, and the citizenry doesn't know about it, it's OK. The problem with Enron is that it failed and everybody found out.
This won't fail, this time it's a sure thing!
While I agree with you, one could argue that if his predictions for the next 20-30 years are correct in re: AI vs Human intelligence (AIs/Robots becoming incredibly intelligent and surpassing humans), then you might interpret predictions like Time travel, Machine dictator, Faster than light travel, etc., as having been invented by the Machines and not Humans.
Just because technology is predicted doesn't necessarily mean it would be we who invented it...
Unless we become complete masters over whatever it is that makes up the "mind", most likely the first such experience would copy the state of the mind, and all you'd end up with would be a mind-copy that also happens to be in a coma...
Kinda like if you have a Windows machine where the hard drive is screwed up such that it blue screens every time you want to boot it up. Just making a copy of the HD wouldn't fix the problem; you'd have to fix it somehow.
Yes, but does the Human Brain support MMX?
Not to mention the continuity problem - If you upload Bob's mind into a computer, what about the orignal, "real" Bob? Is he still alive and well? If so, are there now two Bobs? I would say no. The original is still Bob, but the copy is just a copy. If the copy is truly intelligent and individual and autonomous, it will continue to develop and evolve just as Bob will.
Basically, you'd have the equivalent of biological identical twins, except starting from a later date than birth. The moment the copy begins to "run" or exist, it begins to accumulate different experiences, a different history and personality, from the original.
If the original is dead or dies (ceases to exist) at the time of the copy, you might see unbroken continuity there, and the copy-Bob (Bob2?) would be the same entity, as far as he is concerned...
But I would still say it is different, and not the same.
If you live in a space station, you have to keep building out the station in order to create room for more people. That's a lot of effort.
But if you colonize planets, everyone can have a lot of sex to fill the place up, and the offspring can go build their own homes!
Less work! More sex!
That's why planets are more attractive than space stations!
There's a huge infrastructure set up around MP3s. The most obvious thing for me (and probably tons of other Windows-based MP3 users) is the ID3-tag on most MP3s. I rely heavily on this for indexing my huge collection of MP3s, and I have about 3-4 software programs that use it, and without which I'd be back in the dark ages. One is an extension to the windows shell that adds a page to the properties for MP3s, where I can edit the ID3 tag. It also provides different icons depending on the bitrates of the files.
There's also MPTagger which lets me easily rename files any way I want based on the ID3 tags, or set ID3 tags based on the filenames.
And most importantly, there's my "MP3 Collection" database, which indexes all my MP3s by the ID3 tags.
when all that stuff supports Ogg, then it will be reasonable for me to use, but without it, it's a format that I admire, but it's like giving me a new car with excellent gas milage, but no windows, weak breaks, horrible steering, and hard, bumpy seats. I'd admire the engine, but wish it were a lot more user-friendly...
OK, Since I'm the only one listening to my own audio files, and if others want music from me, having my files in Ogg will encourage them to support Ogg a little, I'm perfectly willing to start using Ogg - even re-encode all my CDs to Ogg.
Except for one thing - Is there an ID3-tag equivalent for Ogg? And will MP3-database programs support it? Because I've become highly dependent on the data stored in my ID3 tags and the indexing capabilities inherent therein.
So until there's some sort of ID3v2 standard for Ogg Vorbis, I won't be switching, because without it, Ogg files are just as nameless and faceless as any other miscellaneous file - I hate relying on file names. Replace MPTagger with an OggTagger, and MP3-ext with an Ogg-ext, with different icons for the different bitrates, and my MP3 Collector indexing database, and my windows desktop and human habits will be satisfied.