Never seen Knoppix (or any of the similar projects), have you? If a handful of German geeks can, I presume in their spare time, produce a Linux distro that JUST WORKS to the point where all you have to do is push the power button, insert a CD, and you have a complete, functional, and reliable OS and desktop... well, it's pretty impressive.
No I haven't seen that project. But such an easy installation is not really impressive either - that is how it should be. I agree with you that Apple has the resources that they could make MacOS X for intel PC's. In fact I'd bet that they have a skunk works project keeping OS X up to date on the PC as an ace in the whole if the PowerPC platform continues to fall behind. Yes, quality control is not their only reason for not porting to X86, the fact that they make their profits on hardware not software is a much larger reason. Still, Apples hardware/software integration goes beyond mere ease of installation and by being control freaks they can acheive tighter hardware/software integration than their competitors in the wintel world.
If OS X were ported and I could buy it for $50, I'd switch my whole office tomorrow.
But, Apple can't count on your attitude being in the majority. You mention Knoppix which in your estimation is as easy and well integrated on the PC as the MacOS is on the Mac, but it isn't exactly making huge gains against windows on the desktop. If Apple ported to the PC even if they could achieve "the Mac way" level of quality assurance they would still be stuck risking the loss of my $2400 PowerBook purchase to gain a lousy $50 from you.
The gene pool is not static, nor is it limited to pre-existing information.
No, but the changes we see in within species are from an essentially static gene pool. If you have blonde hair and both your parents were brunettes we generally assume you are blonde because of a recessive gene your parents had, not because of a mutation. The same is true in breeds of dogs, cats, finches and moths. Darwins finches did not vary because of mutation or because the gene pool was dynamic but because the genes for all of that diversity existed within the population. 99.99% of the changes from one generation to the next are the result of pre-existing genetic diversity not the addition of new genetic information to that diversity. Prexisting genetic diversity alone is what we see at work in the overwhelming majority of variations within speicies whether the agent selecting the subset of genes is selective breeding or natural selection.
I did not say that macroevolution was impossible! I was simply pointing out that there is an obvious and valid distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is overwhelmingly the result of variation within an essentially static (in the timeframes in which we observe it) gene pool. Macroevolution is the result of the gradual change in that gene pool due to mutation.
As you point out changes to a species due to mutation is a very slow process, yet microevolutionary changes caused by natural selection can be quite rapid by comparison. Just a few generations of natural selection can cause significant changes in a population but the genetic information was already there.
Your basic problem is that you have trouble dealing with scales of probability. Because it takes a lot of successful mutations, and most mutations are lethal, you assume that it is not possible, or at least very unlikely, that mutations could add enough information to a gene pool to cause a new species to arise from another. Given the time scales involved, all you need is any non-zero probablity for it to work.
I think it is still a fair question though to examine whether the numbers add up. Saying "well it's a long time" is as much a cop out as "well that's the way God made it" The time spans in which we see substantially different new species arise in the fossil record is finite and a known value. The rate of change to a gene pool over time due to mutation is something that can be extrapolated. Do the two add up? I don't know, even outspoken defenders of evolution like Gould found the Cambrian explosion problematic - recent findings suggest it was preceeded by an "evolutionary fuse" long enough for evolution to explain the phenomena. Nevertheless the question is valid and any scientist that resents the question or resorts to ad hominem attacks on the questioner is no more entitled to the name "scientist" than the most flat-earth, fundamentalist, short-creation day "creation scientist"
The concepts of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are basically arbitrary distinctions invented by people who are forced to admit that biological evolution does, in fact, happen,
In all fairness to the original poster that simply is not so. To simplisticly say that species originate in the same way that varieties of breeds withing species originate only over more time is simply false and provably so. To assert it IS so when it is not simply makes a nice big straw man for creationists to knock over.
Variation among different breeds or sub-species within a species is possible because of the genetic diversity that ALREADY EXISTS within the parent population. All of the genes to end up with either a chihuaua or a Saint Bernard were present in the earlier domesticated canine that was their common ancestor. And there are obvious limits to such breeding. You never get genetic information that the parents didn't have so your canine can never adapt in a gradual way to develop gills or wings to adapt to it's environment. As a matter of fact most of the really aggresively breeded types of dog are pretty much at the limit of variation such subdivision of original genetic information allows. Starting with a wolf and breeding for small size you can make dramatic changes in only a few generations. Starting with a chihuaua and breeding for small size and you can make only modest changes over many generations because you have already bred down to the smalles size dog possible with the genes available.
On the "microevolutionary" scale natural selection does the breeding rather than the American Kennel society. But the genetic mechanism is the same - different breeds are bred by selecting a sub-set of genetic characteristics from a larger set of genetic characteristics present in the parent population. Genes for finches with various beak characteristics, or lighter or darker wings on moths are all microevolutionary changes achieved by genetic mechanisms that can never by themselves explain the origin of species.
Unless you are positing that the earliest life was a single celled organism with a spectacular amount of genetic information sufficient to create by subdivision all of the genetic diversity we see in the species around us you need to add new information.
Macroevolution needs mechanisms to add new genetic information to add new genetic information to the existing gene pool that natural selection is selecting from. Mutation (and other more exotic mechanisms like gene transfer) are the suggested mechanisms to turn microevolutiony varieties within a species into macroevolution which can breed species themselves.
The argument is whether mutation and the other suggested mechanisms are sufficient to explain the existence of the species and the complexity of biological processes we see around us.
To use your analogy: the microevolutionary changes we usually observe in nature like finch beaks and moth wings are like the tiny heel-to-toe steps you describe but limited by being chained to a peg in the ground. You can go pretty far at first but then you are stuck until someone (mutation) adds a link to the chain. As you can see this makes your trip to LA a great deal more arduous than you (and Darwin) originally thought.
And to answer all the "Ack! A one-button mouse!" along with this, I use Photoshop 4-5 hours a day on a mac, and 1-2 on a windows machine. I have my MacAlly scroll mouse...
"Ack! A mouse!!" what are you doing with a mouse if you use Photoshop 4-5 hours a day?!? Get yourself a Wacom Tablet, or even a cheap knock-off! Good Lord, how can you stand 'using' photoshop without a pressure sensitive tablet?
Bottom line is this - "It Just Works" is misleading at best.
Aside from your note about Classic Apps not always working (I haven't had this problem but I'll grant it to you) nothing you said has much to do with that quality that mac users describe as "It Just Works(tm)" It's not saying that any software or hardware out there will work on a mac. Its saying that the software and hardware we do have doesn't only "work" but it JUST works. No configuration hassles, no black art or cryptic commands to learn, just attach it & maybe run an installer and it works the way you expect, the first time.
From what I can see it is still far ahead of Linux in this regard. Even those defending the "ease-of-use" of Linux concede this problem (though they don't realise it) whenever something doesn't work as it should they look at you with an arrogant expression and suggest you are an idiot for not configuring it right. WELL THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Why they hell should I have to "configure it right" why didn't it configure itself right the way my Mac does! If it's so easy the computer should have handled it without my help.
Comparing MacOS X to windows on the other hand - certainly windows has more hardware and software that "works". But I think the Mac still has the edge in that quality described by the word "just" - as in "I 'just' plugged it in and it worked" or "I 'just' installed it, and it worked." Again, MacOS X still has a ways to go to fully reach the ideal of "the Mac way" where things "just work" but it is the closest to realising that ideal and Apple is the most commited to that ideal. OS 9 was failing because the foundation was bad, MacOS X has started with a new foundation and what is built on that foundaton will more and more be honestly described as "It just works"
Windows users shouldn't switch unless you want all the old problems of incompatibility.
Well, since O'Reilly is mostly talking about UNIX users switching the incompatability problems will be far fewer (if they exist at all) or the same windows -> UNIX problems they have already worked around.
Also, I read that article and she is obviously not an idiot since it is very well written and funny. But, most of the problems she is having seem either A) grossly exagerated (all of them), B) unlikely to be a problem for other people (unable to use email with her boyfriend?) or C) matters of personal preference - for instance prefers the word "control" & the control key rather than the curlie-cue on the "command" key. Apparently she is so confused by this she cannot figure out what the command key does (perhaps I was too generous and she IS an idiot, albeit an eloquent one.), and she prefers floppies to CD-RW's (she must have very modest memory needs & probably would have been happier with a MacPlus).
all it took is a couple weeks and a goddamn book on how to use it? Yeah that's great. That was coming from a self-described "mac guru" too.
To be fair, since he WAS a "mac guru" he probably wants to BECOME a "MacOS X guru" and is probably looking to gain more understanding and trying more advanced things than your average "switcher". Also note that I said he "WAS" a Mac Guru. Aside from the name MacOS X has almost *nothing* in common with the Macintosh operating system, this guy is in the same boat that a "windows Guru" would be in if he switched to FreeBSD but wanted to keep, or reaquire his "guru" status.
By contrast, look at the stability of Linux. It too supports a lot of hardware, even on different architectures, yet it is far more stable than Windows.
Yes, once you GET it to work it is more stable than windows, but it doesn't JUST WORK(TM). More than being about stability (though that is part of it) the quality Mac Users mean when they say it "Just Works" is that there is no hassle, things work right out of the box, the first time. THAT is what would be much more difficult without control over both hardware & software
I can think of an example back in the days of System 7 (early 90's? maybe even very late 80's? - I don't remember). I had three or four macs in an office and I connected them all to a new laser printer. Simply by physically connecting them I also inadvertantly set up an appletalk network without even fully realising thats what would happen (I just wanted all of us to be able to print, being able to mount each others disks, transfer files was a pleasant suprise). Around the same time I attached a second monitor to my machine, no hassle, it just worked the moment I plugged it in and the "monitors" control panel had several new options appear that hadn't been there before. That's the kind of experience mac users have come to expect as "the Mac way".
Other OS's have made great strides in approaching that ideal but I think Apple is still the company most commited to that ideal (It's no suprise that they are the driving force behind ZeroConf, an effort to make TCP/IP networks "Just Work"). And I think Apple is still the closest to realising that ideal in their execution. What is amazing (and will get progressively better over time) about OS X is that they have (largely) delivered that kind of ease of use on top of the stability and *flexibility* of UNIX. It is at least close to delivering the best of all possible worlds. The Mac OS was the easiest to use but least flexible/powerful (and towards the end, least stable) - UNIX was the hardest to use but most stable, flexible and powerful. Windows was an unhappy compromise between either extreme (though it kept getting better). MacOS X delivers both ease-of-use of the Mac and power & flexibility of Unix without (for the most part) compromising either.
(User #241058 Info | http://killyridols.net/) Have you even tried the latest Mandrake.. or even RedHat? If you just want to read email, browse the web and play mp3s then you never have to edit config files.
You are describing the absolute minimum, what if you want to do more? How about running much more advanced software suites? Adding new hardware? Attaching a wide array of peripherals? I haven't used Mandrake so I don't know, but it seems that you are implying that to do more you probably will have to edit config files.
I'm doing all the things you mention plus I'm running a number of development tools, a few advanced graphics programs, dual monitors, a USB scanner, a wacom tablet, usb printer, attaching to a professional digital camera, connecting to an 802.11b network & occasionally attaching the laptop to a TV or video monitor, all without ever having to edit config files or even the command line to get it all working. (Oh yeah, and with color correction between input(scanners & camera) and output(monitors & printer or video monitor)). Perhaps that would be possible with Mandrake but your post seems to imply otherwise.
The only config files I have played with are for apache since I wanted to use a lot of advanced features. This is actually one of the things I like about OS X, everything just works, but if you want to do something different, advanced or just plain wierd the config files are still there for the advanced user.
Re:And let me add another but
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 2
They plan to sell their mark to bulk emailers so that they can 'legitimately' spam you. Explain again why this is any good to anyone under any circumstances?
Ok. Lets work on the definition of "spam". If I WANT to get it, I signed up for it, and I have an easy way to opt out later if I change my mind, it is NOT spam. Since those are the conditions under which a mass emailer can use this mark they are not selling it to bulk emailers to 'legitimately spam' me.
This is really not very hard to understand. I use email for business. It has to be out there for prospective clients to find, unfortunately that also makes it easy for spammers to find. At the same time I want to get email from mailing lists and newsletters I signed up for; I want to get announcements from my hosting services; I want to get the bulk email from my brother-in-law announcing the birth of my nephew. I also want to get that individual email from a prospective client who I don't even know about (so he could never be on a 'whitelist'). I certainly don't want a prospective client getting a bounced message telling him he has to send it again with a particular password in the subject line to get through my spam filter.
Re:Okay, let me get this straight...
on
Haiku vs Spam
·
· Score: 2
If I've got my own whitelist system, that returns a message saying "use this string 'Mtzlplck' and the message will go through, but by doing this you agree that you're not a spammer, and if you violate this trust, I'll sue you," then I should have the same protections as if they'd illegially used a copyrighted mark. Right?
Or am I missing something significant?
No, thats pretty much the idea. BUT, it has three advantages.
1) You don't need through the hassle of setting such a system up.
2) People that aren't on your whitelist don't need to go through the hassle of sending you the message, getting bounced and resending with some kind of passphrase to get through your filter. The passphrase to get through anyone's spam filter is universal.
3) Because it relies on well established national (and to a degree, international) copyright laws there is better chance that a spammer that resorts to using this pass phrase will face legal liablities than they would for violating some state or local anti-spam law.
Yes spammers can be hard to track down but it's not impossible and these guys will have a financial incentive and probably at least some resources commited to doing so.
I'm not sure but I think he was implying that the tenent who is actually in possession of the property and benefiting from the "possesion is 9/10ths of the law" dynamic. The landlord just has a piece of paper that says he owns the place, the tenent is actually THERE.
I would imagine it's different from one jurisdiction to the next but I have known landlords that found it nearly impossible to evict tenents who not only didn't pay their rent but damaged the property. One friend of mine went through months of legal wrangling with no rent being paid and legal expenses rising and more damage being done (& the damage done being used as "proof" of the slum conditions maintained by the "slumlord") the court finally let him evict the tenent but decided that the back rent was too much for the poor tenent so she only had to pay half, and of course she needed a good long grace period to find a new apt. & only had to start paying after she found new digs (and would probably be difficult to locate).
Ironically the laws and mindset that seeks to always protect the tenent from evil landlords tends to create a stituation that guarantees the landlord WILL be "evil". Without legal recourse the only landlords that made a profit in this neighborhood are the ones willing to deal with their tenents in an unprincipled manner. My friend with the nightmare tenent was advised by his real estate agent that the courts would work against him but that a "non-staturory eviction" could be arranged. A "non-staturory" eviction in the form of a couple of thugs giving the friendly advise that "it's a bad neighborhood, maybe you should move, bad things could happen to you". He chose the legal route instead and was punished, he eventually had to sell the property and sell it to someone else that was able to make money on the property because he did not have the scruples my friend did.
Yes, I sort of addressed that by saying that the book does not only deny speciation, but all of evolution
To be fair to them I would imagine when they deny evolution they are talking the theory of evolution as "The Origin of Species" in other words speciation. It's getting into semantics, variations within a species which you and I were calling "evolution" aren't really evolution - almost more like devolution, things aren't getting more complex and rich - the opposite is happening. There is less and less information in each succeeding generation of breeded animals until you get highly specialised but genetically identical population incapable of any further change.
I'm pretty familiar with creationists, and like I said I don't know any that deny variation within species (though they may make a point to not CALL it evolution, a semantic point that I think is actually pretty fair). Actually creationists tend to be make a great deal out of the genetic mechanism that causes variation within species BECAUSE it cannot explain specieation and yet many evolutionists simplisticly assert that it does and so set up a nice big straw man for creationsists to knock down. The various breeds of dogs and other domesticated animals appear at first glance to be a vindication of evolutionary theory - the creationists are right (in this instance) to point out that this mechanism cannot explain speciation.
After that little run-in, I think an XML-based word processor would be a terrible idea. People who use word processors aren't looking to create structured documents. They just want to bang out a memo, or a fax cover sheet, or a letter to grandma. Forcing those users to work in a structured environment would be murder, and would result in a terrible user experience.
I don't agree. It does not have to be any harder to define structure and then let the look be defined by a style sheet applied to that structure than it is to arbitrarily define the style without any structure. Which is harder for your secretary: selecting some text and choosing "headline" or selecing the text and choosing "bold", "Garamond", "18 Point", and "Center" (and maybe "blue" because she things it looks nice) in succession? And of course every other secretary is choosing different fonts, sizes, styles.
And while fax cover sheets don't need to be structured it would probably be a good idea if memos were structured. Which is easier when you are looking for that policy clarification from your boss: crossindexing all the "Memo" documents on the server by "subject" and "author" or looking through a folder filled with undifferentiated.doc files and hoping the file name was something more informative than "memo"? (or God forbid, searching through all the papers in your file cabinet?)
And of course MS Office not just used for memo's it is regularly used for longer documents that are just crying out to benefit from a defined structure.
, but my point is simply to say that formatted documents and structured documents are very different things,
Again, I disagree. Documents DO have a structure (memo's for instance generally have lines dedicated to "subject" "from" "to" etc.) It's just nobody has bothered to define that structure in a way the computer can access. There are obvious advantages to making that structure explicit rather than implicitly defined it by visual formatting (for instance my example above of searching through memos by subject and author). Furthermore a structured document can also be a formatted.
Finally the situation you described is exactly WHY structured documents with formatting independently applied to them is vastly superior to simply formatted documents. If the original documents had been done in an open format defining structure and the strange 10"x10" layout defined by a style sheet. Then all you would have to do is take the XML and apply your new style sheet. No tedious file conversions. Imagine how much MORE tedious it would be to have to go through the new subsidiaries old memo's in.doc format to find just the ones with a particular type of information (say memos related to a particular product) and then convert them to use with another word processor, or to be put in a searchable database, or converted to html for use on the intranet. All tedious jobs with a propriety format that only defines visual formatting, all easy jobs with an open format that defines structure.
I don't think it is a logical flaw it is simply a matter of disagreeing over what is more important. A libertarian (and the BSD license) believes freedom is more important, an egalitarian (and the GPL license) believes equality is more important.
I happen to land more on the libertarian side of the argument, freedom is more important. Fortunately (and this is one of the reasons freedom is IMO the more critical value) one of the great advantages of a society that favors freedom over equality is that you can freely CHOOSE to enter into agreements that make the opposite value judgement. In a free society I can choose to write GPL sofware, I can choose to join a commune, & such choices exist. I'm all in favor of GPL software but would dread a society that decided all software MUST be GPL. For those that always advocate greater egalitarianism I always wonder whether they have used their freedom to make that choice for themselves. GPL software folks seem laudably consistent on this, yet most of the socialists I know have yet to join communes nor voluntarily given any income above the average to the government for redistribution. Until they choose to use their freedom to do what they *say* they want I would suggest they haven't given a free system a fair chance. It also bodes ill for any political victory they may achieve to *force* others to live out convictions they don't choose to live out when they are free to do so.
Back on the topic of software - I really have no problem with ANY software licenses; GPL, BSD or even outright closed, proprietary licences. The software covered by any license is the product of someone elses work, I don't feel I have any particular RIGHT to the fruit of other peoples work. If they choose to share that work with me that's great. If they choose to share it with me on the condition that I must also share anything I add that's great too. If they don't want to share that's a bummer, but I'm no worse off than I would have been if they hadn't done the work, and I'm free to make a similar product and share it however I please.
It sounds like that book has a lot of stupid arguments.
But don't make the same mistake or a smarter creationist will come along and make you look as foolish.
You said: To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational.
This is a silly statement since the last two thousand years of selective breeding is all about variation *within* a species. A Creationist can bring it up as ably as a proof against the larger claims of Darwinian evolution as you can make for it. Such variations within species are possible because of the variety of genetic combinations that are possible with EXISTING genes. A chihuaua (sp?) and a saint bernard are both still Canines and all the genes required to produce either was present within the "generic" dogs you started breeding from. In selective breeding you are starting with a lot of information and getting a very small subset, the very opposite of macroevolution. While such variation within species when it occurs naturally provides ample proofs for the mechanism of natural selection in selecting which variations will prosper it is no proof of Darwinian evolution (and certainly selective breeding isn't). I know of no creationists of any stripe (from Fundamentalist short creation day to the most broad minded [in comparison] intelligent design theorist) that has a problem with variation within species or even with the role of natural selection in shaping such variations.
Macroevolution requires NEW information through mutation or gene transference to be added as grist to the natrual selection mill. This is where creationists have a problem either because of religious belief in the case of Fundamentalists or from a professed scientific objection in the case of Intelligent design theorists (to give them the benefit of the doubt that their scientific objections aren't just masks over religious objections - perhaps they are, but even so to dismiss their theories on that account only is an ad hominim fallacy).
This is another difference, downloading is copying which is why putting it on your FTP server is considered "distribution".
I wasn't saying I would put it on my FTP server I was saying I would have to get a "new" copy for each disk I sold so that I am only selling my own individual copy.
Indeed, you seem to be saying that one can't be allowed purchase a movie, they can only be liscenced to view it.
No, but I am limited by what exactly I bought. Did I buy ALL the rights to a movie? If so I can rebroadcast it, sell copies, show it in theaters & charge for admission & make any changes I want. People do "buy the movie" in that sense all the time. But those deals are usually figured in the millions of dollars, obviously I didn't "buy the movie" in that way for $19.95. So what did I buy? Well I bought whatever rights that the owner of those rights agreed to sell me and I agreed to buy, in the case of most movies the right to view the movie. I could have bought more rights to do more with the movie but I didn't. Sure I bought the right to edit my personal copy & even sell that copy to a friend. But it is an open question & a fair question to ask, whether it would also cover me doing the same thing on a mass production basis. Is my editing of thousands of copies of a movie an example of my fair use of a personal copy of the movie? In this case the difference in quantity can reasonably be held to be a difference in quality. That cutting a few scenes of jar jar binks out of your personal copy and then selling it to a friend is different (and 'fair') from doing the same thing to a few thousand copies and selling them through a chain of stores (perhaps unfair). The text of the fair use clause is silent on this issue (indeed it has very little to do with such private use at all, it has to do with when making multiple copies is fair, not editing a single copy). The broader fair use concept is a product of the courts and is even vaguer than the vague statute, basically it is just what it sounds like, is some use a "fair" exception to the general rule that the copyright holder has exclusive rights to his product.
The GPL lives on without a "much maligned concept of intellectual property rights".
No it does not, that gift economy or guild socialism exists within a protective cocoon based on the IP rights of the creator(s) - which was my point. If that were not so there would be no need for the license and there would be no protection against people taking what they want from the gift economy to use in the "property and purchase" economy. For instance in a world without IP if Bill Gates took Linux in it's entirety and used it as the basis for the closed source, $399.99 WindowsLX you would have no recourse other than to call him nasty names (which we do anyway). As it is you can sue him for violating Linus's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and you would win because there is such a thing in our law.
You'd have to point out how you feel slashdotters are advocating expanding the view of fair use. For now I see them as bunkering down to protect what is already there.
"Fair Use" is a vague concept which was joined in 1976 by a vague statute whose concrete expression is only determined by case law. Because it is so vague it's application is largely a matter of interpretation and/.ers tend to be at one expansive extreme with the RIAA at the other restrictive extreme. With such a vague concept it is almost pointless to argue over who is "right" until a court choses between the conflicting interpretations with it's own authoritative interpretaton. I suspect though that a reasonable and objective interpretation free from either dogma or a financial stake would chart a middle course between either extreme. Neither the "Information 'wants' to be free, regardless of the desires of it's creator" nor the "You can't even back up your disk" extreme should prevail. If the "information wants to be free" view does prevail I fear it would be a phyric victory since even though YOU want information to be free information has no particular desires of it's own (except it keeps telling me it hates to be anthropomorphised) If it is in it's creators benefit that it NOT be free & the law gives him no recourse other than secrecy that will be the result. More things will be kept hidden and closed when there is no legal protection of the owners benefits should they become open.
"Yank" could be considered offensive to a Southerner. Why not call them "Americans" and be done with it. Sure American can also (and sometimes does) refer to anyone from any country in the Americas, but a lot of words pull double duty (I bet you didn't think 'duty' meant the same as 'tariff' in this last sentance).
"L" in the beginning of "LGPL" means just what I said.
Sure, but I didn't say "LGPL" i said "GPL" which has one "L" in it and it means "License"
"L" at the end of GPL still doesn't mean "limited".
No it means "license" and that license means YOU DON"T OWN IT. it is LICENCED TO YOU according to the TERMS of the license.
That license includes terms that say "you may X provided you Y. "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program... provided that you also meet certain conditions. Either provide the source code, offer the source code at cost or pass on the offer of source code (if you are distributing a binary you got from someone else)
With "fair use", you can edit and even sell the movie you edited as long as you establish that you've edited it.
And why wouldn't that apply to Linux as well? "Oh, I'm sorry, this edited copy of Linux I'm selling to you was edited under my "fair use" rights to edit and resell - Not under the rights licensed to me by the GPL terms, so I don't need to provide the source to you. Apparently when the authors asserted in the GPL that I DIDN'T have the right to edit and redistribute aside from the license they forgot my fair use right to do so." I suppose to be honest, I would have to download a new original for each edited copy I sold so I'm not making multiple copies of a single original (which wouldn't be covered by fair use)
I'll admit I am playing the devils advocate here. Just to point out that it is the much maligned concept of intellectual property rights that makes GPL style licenses and open source possible. Slashdotters often take such an expansive view of Fair Use as to make those rights a dead letter. Taken to an extreme it is ultimately even more damaging to the open source movement than it is to closed source software whose "intellectual property rights" are protected not only by force of copyright law but by the simple expedient of only being available as binaries. Information may want to be free but when that information is a computer program that desire can be frustrated.
GPL == General Public License I have no idea what "GPL" you are talking about but it is something different from what everyone else on this board has been talking about.
For instance, if somebody drew a mustache on Mona Lisa prints, and sold those, you could raise an entire generation of folks who threw out what was good about the Mona Lisa because Leonardo's mustache drawing abilities were clearly sub-par.)
What if you editted the moustache off of Marcel Duchamp's DaDa masterpiece L.H.O.O.Q? And can Duchamp's estate sue warhol's over his L.H.O.O.Q?
GPL 101: The GPL is all about allowing and enhancing ones ability to alter and redistributable works.
But only with the creators permission and limited by terms set by the creator (thus the "L" in GPL). If you can alter the work WITHOUT THE CREATORS PERMISSION there is nothing stopping me from releasing my own distribution of any open source project as a closed source binary.
Slashdot Mirror
Never seen Knoppix (or any of the similar projects), have you? If a handful of German geeks can, I presume in their spare time, produce a Linux distro that JUST WORKS to the point where all you have to do is push the power button, insert a CD, and you have a complete, functional, and reliable OS and desktop... well, it's pretty impressive.
No I haven't seen that project. But such an easy installation is not really impressive either - that is how it should be. I agree with you that Apple has the resources that they could make MacOS X for intel PC's. In fact I'd bet that they have a skunk works project keeping OS X up to date on the PC as an ace in the whole if the PowerPC platform continues to fall behind. Yes, quality control is not their only reason for not porting to X86, the fact that they make their profits on hardware not software is a much larger reason. Still, Apples hardware/software integration goes beyond mere ease of installation and by being control freaks they can acheive tighter hardware/software integration than their competitors in the wintel world.
If OS X were ported and I could buy it for $50, I'd switch my whole office tomorrow.
But, Apple can't count on your attitude being in the majority. You mention Knoppix which in your estimation is as easy and well integrated on the PC as the MacOS is on the Mac, but it isn't exactly making huge gains against windows on the desktop. If Apple ported to the PC even if they could achieve "the Mac way" level of quality assurance they would still be stuck risking the loss of my $2400 PowerBook purchase to gain a lousy $50 from you.
The gene pool is not static, nor is it limited to pre-existing information.
No, but the changes we see in within species are from an essentially static gene pool. If you have blonde hair and both your parents were brunettes we generally assume you are blonde because of a recessive gene your parents had, not because of a mutation. The same is true in breeds of dogs, cats, finches and moths. Darwins finches did not vary because of mutation or because the gene pool was dynamic but because the genes for all of that diversity existed within the population. 99.99% of the changes from one generation to the next are the result of pre-existing genetic diversity not the addition of new genetic information to that diversity. Prexisting genetic diversity alone is what we see at work in the overwhelming majority of variations within speicies whether the agent selecting the subset of genes is selective breeding or natural selection.
I did not say that macroevolution was impossible! I was simply pointing out that there is an obvious and valid distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is overwhelmingly the result of variation within an essentially static (in the timeframes in which we observe it) gene pool. Macroevolution is the result of the gradual change in that gene pool due to mutation.
As you point out changes to a species due to mutation is a very slow process, yet microevolutionary changes caused by natural selection can be quite rapid by comparison. Just a few generations of natural selection can cause significant changes in a population but the genetic information was already there.
Your basic problem is that you have trouble dealing with scales of probability. Because it takes a lot of successful mutations, and most mutations are lethal, you assume that it is not possible, or at least very unlikely, that mutations could add enough information to a gene pool to cause a new species to arise from another. Given the time scales involved, all you need is any non-zero probablity for it to work.
I think it is still a fair question though to examine whether the numbers add up. Saying "well it's a long time" is as much a cop out as "well that's the way God made it" The time spans in which we see substantially different new species arise in the fossil record is finite and a known value. The rate of change to a gene pool over time due to mutation is something that can be extrapolated. Do the two add up? I don't know, even outspoken defenders of evolution like Gould found the Cambrian explosion problematic - recent findings suggest it was preceeded by an "evolutionary fuse" long enough for evolution to explain the phenomena. Nevertheless the question is valid and any scientist that resents the question or resorts to ad hominem attacks on the questioner is no more entitled to the name "scientist" than the most flat-earth, fundamentalist, short-creation day "creation scientist"
The concepts of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are basically arbitrary distinctions invented by people who are forced to admit that biological evolution does, in fact, happen,
In all fairness to the original poster that simply is not so. To simplisticly say that species originate in the same way that varieties of breeds withing species originate only over more time is simply false and provably so. To assert it IS so when it is not simply makes a nice big straw man for creationists to knock over.
Variation among different breeds or sub-species within a species is possible because of the genetic diversity that ALREADY EXISTS within the parent population. All of the genes to end up with either a chihuaua or a Saint Bernard were present in the earlier domesticated canine that was their common ancestor. And there are obvious limits to such breeding. You never get genetic information that the parents didn't have so your canine can never adapt in a gradual way to develop gills or wings to adapt to it's environment. As a matter of fact most of the really aggresively breeded types of dog are pretty much at the limit of variation such subdivision of original genetic information allows. Starting with a wolf and breeding for small size you can make dramatic changes in only a few generations. Starting with a chihuaua and breeding for small size and you can make only modest changes over many generations because you have already bred down to the smalles size dog possible with the genes available.
On the "microevolutionary" scale natural selection does the breeding rather than the American Kennel society. But the genetic mechanism is the same - different breeds are bred by selecting a sub-set of genetic characteristics from a larger set of genetic characteristics present in the parent population. Genes for finches with various beak characteristics, or lighter or darker wings on moths are all microevolutionary changes achieved by genetic mechanisms that can never by themselves explain the origin of species.
Unless you are positing that the earliest life was a single celled organism with a spectacular amount of genetic information sufficient to create by subdivision all of the genetic diversity we see in the species around us you need to add new information. Macroevolution needs mechanisms to add new genetic information to add new genetic information to the existing gene pool that natural selection is selecting from. Mutation (and other more exotic mechanisms like gene transfer) are the suggested mechanisms to turn microevolutiony varieties within a species into macroevolution which can breed species themselves. The argument is whether mutation and the other suggested mechanisms are sufficient to explain the existence of the species and the complexity of biological processes we see around us.
To use your analogy: the microevolutionary changes we usually observe in nature like finch beaks and moth wings are like the tiny heel-to-toe steps you describe but limited by being chained to a peg in the ground. You can go pretty far at first but then you are stuck until someone (mutation) adds a link to the chain. As you can see this makes your trip to LA a great deal more arduous than you (and Darwin) originally thought.
And to answer all the "Ack! A one-button mouse!" along with this, I use Photoshop 4-5 hours a day on a mac, and 1-2 on a windows machine. I have my MacAlly scroll mouse...
"Ack! A mouse!!" what are you doing with a mouse if you use Photoshop 4-5 hours a day?!? Get yourself a Wacom Tablet, or even a cheap knock-off! Good Lord, how can you stand 'using' photoshop without a pressure sensitive tablet?
Bottom line is this - "It Just Works" is misleading at best.
Aside from your note about Classic Apps not always working (I haven't had this problem but I'll grant it to you) nothing you said has much to do with that quality that mac users describe as "It Just Works(tm)" It's not saying that any software or hardware out there will work on a mac. Its saying that the software and hardware we do have doesn't only "work" but it JUST works. No configuration hassles, no black art or cryptic commands to learn, just attach it & maybe run an installer and it works the way you expect, the first time.
From what I can see it is still far ahead of Linux in this regard. Even those defending the "ease-of-use" of Linux concede this problem (though they don't realise it) whenever something doesn't work as it should they look at you with an arrogant expression and suggest you are an idiot for not configuring it right. WELL THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Why they hell should I have to "configure it right" why didn't it configure itself right the way my Mac does! If it's so easy the computer should have handled it without my help.
Comparing MacOS X to windows on the other hand - certainly windows has more hardware and software that "works". But I think the Mac still has the edge in that quality described by the word "just" - as in "I 'just' plugged it in and it worked" or "I 'just' installed it, and it worked." Again, MacOS X still has a ways to go to fully reach the ideal of "the Mac way" where things "just work" but it is the closest to realising that ideal and Apple is the most commited to that ideal. OS 9 was failing because the foundation was bad, MacOS X has started with a new foundation and what is built on that foundaton will more and more be honestly described as "It just works"
Windows users shouldn't switch unless you want all the old problems of incompatibility.
Well, since O'Reilly is mostly talking about UNIX users switching the incompatability problems will be far fewer (if they exist at all) or the same windows -> UNIX problems they have already worked around.
Also, I read that article and she is obviously not an idiot since it is very well written and funny. But, most of the problems she is having seem either A) grossly exagerated (all of them), B) unlikely to be a problem for other people (unable to use email with her boyfriend?) or C) matters of personal preference - for instance prefers the word "control" & the control key rather than the curlie-cue on the "command" key. Apparently she is so confused by this she cannot figure out what the command key does (perhaps I was too generous and she IS an idiot, albeit an eloquent one.), and she prefers floppies to CD-RW's (she must have very modest memory needs & probably would have been happier with a MacPlus).
all it took is a couple weeks and a goddamn book on how to use it? Yeah that's great. That was coming from a self-described "mac guru" too.
To be fair, since he WAS a "mac guru" he probably wants to BECOME a "MacOS X guru" and is probably looking to gain more understanding and trying more advanced things than your average "switcher". Also note that I said he "WAS" a Mac Guru. Aside from the name MacOS X has almost *nothing* in common with the Macintosh operating system, this guy is in the same boat that a "windows Guru" would be in if he switched to FreeBSD but wanted to keep, or reaquire his "guru" status.
By contrast, look at the stability of Linux. It too supports a lot of hardware, even on different architectures, yet it is far more stable than Windows.
Yes, once you GET it to work it is more stable than windows, but it doesn't JUST WORK(TM). More than being about stability (though that is part of it) the quality Mac Users mean when they say it "Just Works" is that there is no hassle, things work right out of the box, the first time. THAT is what would be much more difficult without control over both hardware & software
I can think of an example back in the days of System 7 (early 90's? maybe even very late 80's? - I don't remember). I had three or four macs in an office and I connected them all to a new laser printer. Simply by physically connecting them I also inadvertantly set up an appletalk network without even fully realising thats what would happen (I just wanted all of us to be able to print, being able to mount each others disks, transfer files was a pleasant suprise). Around the same time I attached a second monitor to my machine, no hassle, it just worked the moment I plugged it in and the "monitors" control panel had several new options appear that hadn't been there before. That's the kind of experience mac users have come to expect as "the Mac way".
Other OS's have made great strides in approaching that ideal but I think Apple is still the company most commited to that ideal (It's no suprise that they are the driving force behind ZeroConf, an effort to make TCP/IP networks "Just Work"). And I think Apple is still the closest to realising that ideal in their execution. What is amazing (and will get progressively better over time) about OS X is that they have (largely) delivered that kind of ease of use on top of the stability and *flexibility* of UNIX. It is at least close to delivering the best of all possible worlds. The Mac OS was the easiest to use but least flexible/powerful (and towards the end, least stable) - UNIX was the hardest to use but most stable, flexible and powerful. Windows was an unhappy compromise between either extreme (though it kept getting better). MacOS X delivers both ease-of-use of the Mac and power & flexibility of Unix without (for the most part) compromising either.
(User #241058 Info | http://killyridols.net/) Have you even tried the latest Mandrake.. or even RedHat? If you just want to read email, browse the web and play mp3s then you never have to edit config files.
You are describing the absolute minimum, what if you want to do more? How about running much more advanced software suites? Adding new hardware? Attaching a wide array of peripherals? I haven't used Mandrake so I don't know, but it seems that you are implying that to do more you probably will have to edit config files.
I'm doing all the things you mention plus I'm running a number of development tools, a few advanced graphics programs, dual monitors, a USB scanner, a wacom tablet, usb printer, attaching to a professional digital camera, connecting to an 802.11b network & occasionally attaching the laptop to a TV or video monitor, all without ever having to edit config files or even the command line to get it all working. (Oh yeah, and with color correction between input(scanners & camera) and output(monitors & printer or video monitor)). Perhaps that would be possible with Mandrake but your post seems to imply otherwise.
The only config files I have played with are for apache since I wanted to use a lot of advanced features. This is actually one of the things I like about OS X, everything just works, but if you want to do something different, advanced or just plain wierd the config files are still there for the advanced user.
They plan to sell their mark to bulk emailers so that they can 'legitimately' spam you. Explain again why this is any good to anyone under any circumstances?
Ok. Lets work on the definition of "spam". If I WANT to get it, I signed up for it, and I have an easy way to opt out later if I change my mind, it is NOT spam. Since those are the conditions under which a mass emailer can use this mark they are not selling it to bulk emailers to 'legitimately spam' me.
This is really not very hard to understand. I use email for business. It has to be out there for prospective clients to find, unfortunately that also makes it easy for spammers to find. At the same time I want to get email from mailing lists and newsletters I signed up for; I want to get announcements from my hosting services; I want to get the bulk email from my brother-in-law announcing the birth of my nephew. I also want to get that individual email from a prospective client who I don't even know about (so he could never be on a 'whitelist'). I certainly don't want a prospective client getting a bounced message telling him he has to send it again with a particular password in the subject line to get through my spam filter.
If I've got my own whitelist system, that returns a message saying "use this string 'Mtzlplck' and the message will go through, but by doing this you agree that you're not a spammer, and if you violate this trust, I'll sue you," then I should have the same protections as if they'd illegially used a copyrighted mark. Right?
Or am I missing something significant?
No, thats pretty much the idea. BUT, it has three advantages.
1) You don't need through the hassle of setting such a system up.
2) People that aren't on your whitelist don't need to go through the hassle of sending you the message, getting bounced and resending with some kind of passphrase to get through your filter. The passphrase to get through anyone's spam filter is universal.
3) Because it relies on well established national (and to a degree, international) copyright laws there is better chance that a spammer that resorts to using this pass phrase will face legal liablities than they would for violating some state or local anti-spam law.
Yes spammers can be hard to track down but it's not impossible and these guys will have a financial incentive and probably at least some resources commited to doing so.
I'm not sure but I think he was implying that the tenent who is actually in possession of the property and benefiting from the "possesion is 9/10ths of the law" dynamic. The landlord just has a piece of paper that says he owns the place, the tenent is actually THERE.
I would imagine it's different from one jurisdiction to the next but I have known landlords that found it nearly impossible to evict tenents who not only didn't pay their rent but damaged the property. One friend of mine went through months of legal wrangling with no rent being paid and legal expenses rising and more damage being done (& the damage done being used as "proof" of the slum conditions maintained by the "slumlord") the court finally let him evict the tenent but decided that the back rent was too much for the poor tenent so she only had to pay half, and of course she needed a good long grace period to find a new apt. & only had to start paying after she found new digs (and would probably be difficult to locate).
Ironically the laws and mindset that seeks to always protect the tenent from evil landlords tends to create a stituation that guarantees the landlord WILL be "evil". Without legal recourse the only landlords that made a profit in this neighborhood are the ones willing to deal with their tenents in an unprincipled manner. My friend with the nightmare tenent was advised by his real estate agent that the courts would work against him but that a "non-staturory eviction" could be arranged. A "non-staturory" eviction in the form of a couple of thugs giving the friendly advise that "it's a bad neighborhood, maybe you should move, bad things could happen to you". He chose the legal route instead and was punished, he eventually had to sell the property and sell it to someone else that was able to make money on the property because he did not have the scruples my friend did.
Yes, I sort of addressed that by saying that the book does not only deny speciation, but all of evolution
To be fair to them I would imagine when they deny evolution they are talking the theory of evolution as "The Origin of Species" in other words speciation. It's getting into semantics, variations within a species which you and I were calling "evolution" aren't really evolution - almost more like devolution, things aren't getting more complex and rich - the opposite is happening. There is less and less information in each succeeding generation of breeded animals until you get highly specialised but genetically identical population incapable of any further change.
I'm pretty familiar with creationists, and like I said I don't know any that deny variation within species (though they may make a point to not CALL it evolution, a semantic point that I think is actually pretty fair). Actually creationists tend to be make a great deal out of the genetic mechanism that causes variation within species BECAUSE it cannot explain specieation and yet many evolutionists simplisticly assert that it does and so set up a nice big straw man for creationsists to knock down. The various breeds of dogs and other domesticated animals appear at first glance to be a vindication of evolutionary theory - the creationists are right (in this instance) to point out that this mechanism cannot explain speciation.
After that little run-in, I think an XML-based word processor would be a terrible idea. People who use word processors aren't looking to create structured documents. They just want to bang out a memo, or a fax cover sheet, or a letter to grandma. Forcing those users to work in a structured environment would be murder, and would result in a terrible user experience.
.doc files and hoping the file name was something more informative than "memo"? (or God forbid, searching through all the papers in your file cabinet?)
.doc format to find just the ones with a particular type of information (say memos related to a particular product) and then convert them to use with another word processor, or to be put in a searchable database, or converted to html for use on the intranet. All tedious jobs with a propriety format that only defines visual formatting, all easy jobs with an open format that defines structure.
I don't agree. It does not have to be any harder to define structure and then let the look be defined by a style sheet applied to that structure than it is to arbitrarily define the style without any structure. Which is harder for your secretary: selecting some text and choosing "headline" or selecing the text and choosing "bold", "Garamond", "18 Point", and "Center" (and maybe "blue" because she things it looks nice) in succession? And of course every other secretary is choosing different fonts, sizes, styles.
And while fax cover sheets don't need to be structured it would probably be a good idea if memos were structured. Which is easier when you are looking for that policy clarification from your boss: crossindexing all the "Memo" documents on the server by "subject" and "author" or looking through a folder filled with undifferentiated
And of course MS Office not just used for memo's it is regularly used for longer documents that are just crying out to benefit from a defined structure.
, but my point is simply to say that formatted documents and structured documents are very different things,
Again, I disagree. Documents DO have a structure (memo's for instance generally have lines dedicated to "subject" "from" "to" etc.) It's just nobody has bothered to define that structure in a way the computer can access. There are obvious advantages to making that structure explicit rather than implicitly defined it by visual formatting (for instance my example above of searching through memos by subject and author). Furthermore a structured document can also be a formatted.
Finally the situation you described is exactly WHY structured documents with formatting independently applied to them is vastly superior to simply formatted documents. If the original documents had been done in an open format defining structure and the strange 10"x10" layout defined by a style sheet. Then all you would have to do is take the XML and apply your new style sheet. No tedious file conversions. Imagine how much MORE tedious it would be to have to go through the new subsidiaries old memo's in
I don't think it is a logical flaw it is simply a matter of disagreeing over what is more important. A libertarian (and the BSD license) believes freedom is more important, an egalitarian (and the GPL license) believes equality is more important.
I happen to land more on the libertarian side of the argument, freedom is more important. Fortunately (and this is one of the reasons freedom is IMO the more critical value) one of the great advantages of a society that favors freedom over equality is that you can freely CHOOSE to enter into agreements that make the opposite value judgement. In a free society I can choose to write GPL sofware, I can choose to join a commune, & such choices exist. I'm all in favor of GPL software but would dread a society that decided all software MUST be GPL. For those that always advocate greater egalitarianism I always wonder whether they have used their freedom to make that choice for themselves. GPL software folks seem laudably consistent on this, yet most of the socialists I know have yet to join communes nor voluntarily given any income above the average to the government for redistribution. Until they choose to use their freedom to do what they *say* they want I would suggest they haven't given a free system a fair chance. It also bodes ill for any political victory they may achieve to *force* others to live out convictions they don't choose to live out when they are free to do so.
Back on the topic of software - I really have no problem with ANY software licenses; GPL, BSD or even outright closed, proprietary licences. The software covered by any license is the product of someone elses work, I don't feel I have any particular RIGHT to the fruit of other peoples work. If they choose to share that work with me that's great. If they choose to share it with me on the condition that I must also share anything I add that's great too. If they don't want to share that's a bummer, but I'm no worse off than I would have been if they hadn't done the work, and I'm free to make a similar product and share it however I please.
It sounds like that book has a lot of stupid arguments. But don't make the same mistake or a smarter creationist will come along and make you look as foolish.
You said: To deny that evoultion exists is to deny that the last two thousand years of selective breeding in agriculture and livestock had any effect at all, which is obviously irrational.
This is a silly statement since the last two thousand years of selective breeding is all about variation *within* a species. A Creationist can bring it up as ably as a proof against the larger claims of Darwinian evolution as you can make for it. Such variations within species are possible because of the variety of genetic combinations that are possible with EXISTING genes. A chihuaua (sp?) and a saint bernard are both still Canines and all the genes required to produce either was present within the "generic" dogs you started breeding from. In selective breeding you are starting with a lot of information and getting a very small subset, the very opposite of macroevolution. While such variation within species when it occurs naturally provides ample proofs for the mechanism of natural selection in selecting which variations will prosper it is no proof of Darwinian evolution (and certainly selective breeding isn't). I know of no creationists of any stripe (from Fundamentalist short creation day to the most broad minded [in comparison] intelligent design theorist) that has a problem with variation within species or even with the role of natural selection in shaping such variations.
Macroevolution requires NEW information through mutation or gene transference to be added as grist to the natrual selection mill. This is where creationists have a problem either because of religious belief in the case of Fundamentalists or from a professed scientific objection in the case of Intelligent design theorists (to give them the benefit of the doubt that their scientific objections aren't just masks over religious objections - perhaps they are, but even so to dismiss their theories on that account only is an ad hominim fallacy).
Now, slip a little radio transciever tag onto the thing and we're in busines...
It's already being done Autoidcenter.org
This is another difference, downloading is copying which is why putting it on your FTP server is considered "distribution".
/.ers tend to be at one expansive extreme with the RIAA at the other restrictive extreme. With such a vague concept it is almost pointless to argue over who is "right" until a court choses between the conflicting interpretations with it's own authoritative interpretaton. I suspect though that a reasonable and objective interpretation free from either dogma or a financial stake would chart a middle course between either extreme. Neither the "Information 'wants' to be free, regardless of the desires of it's creator" nor the "You can't even back up your disk" extreme should prevail. If the "information wants to be free" view does prevail I fear it would be a phyric victory since even though YOU want information to be free information has no particular desires of it's own (except it keeps telling me it hates to be anthropomorphised) If it is in it's creators benefit that it NOT be free & the law gives him no recourse other than secrecy that will be the result. More things will be kept hidden and closed when there is no legal protection of the owners benefits should they become open.
I wasn't saying I would put it on my FTP server I was saying I would have to get a "new" copy for each disk I sold so that I am only selling my own individual copy.
Indeed, you seem to be saying that one can't be allowed purchase a movie, they can only be liscenced to view it.
No, but I am limited by what exactly I bought. Did I buy ALL the rights to a movie? If so I can rebroadcast it, sell copies, show it in theaters & charge for admission & make any changes I want. People do "buy the movie" in that sense all the time. But those deals are usually figured in the millions of dollars, obviously I didn't "buy the movie" in that way for $19.95. So what did I buy? Well I bought whatever rights that the owner of those rights agreed to sell me and I agreed to buy, in the case of most movies the right to view the movie. I could have bought more rights to do more with the movie but I didn't. Sure I bought the right to edit my personal copy & even sell that copy to a friend. But it is an open question & a fair question to ask, whether it would also cover me doing the same thing on a mass production basis. Is my editing of thousands of copies of a movie an example of my fair use of a personal copy of the movie? In this case the difference in quantity can reasonably be held to be a difference in quality. That cutting a few scenes of jar jar binks out of your personal copy and then selling it to a friend is different (and 'fair') from doing the same thing to a few thousand copies and selling them through a chain of stores (perhaps unfair). The text of the fair use clause is silent on this issue (indeed it has very little to do with such private use at all, it has to do with when making multiple copies is fair, not editing a single copy). The broader fair use concept is a product of the courts and is even vaguer than the vague statute, basically it is just what it sounds like, is some use a "fair" exception to the general rule that the copyright holder has exclusive rights to his product.
The GPL lives on without a "much maligned concept of intellectual property rights".
No it does not, that gift economy or guild socialism exists within a protective cocoon based on the IP rights of the creator(s) - which was my point. If that were not so there would be no need for the license and there would be no protection against people taking what they want from the gift economy to use in the "property and purchase" economy. For instance in a world without IP if Bill Gates took Linux in it's entirety and used it as the basis for the closed source, $399.99 WindowsLX you would have no recourse other than to call him nasty names (which we do anyway). As it is you can sue him for violating Linus's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and you would win because there is such a thing in our law.
You'd have to point out how you feel slashdotters are advocating expanding the view of fair use. For now I see them as bunkering down to protect what is already there.
"Fair Use" is a vague concept which was joined in 1976 by a vague statute whose concrete expression is only determined by case law. Because it is so vague it's application is largely a matter of interpretation and
"Yank" could be considered offensive to a Southerner. Why not call them "Americans" and be done with it. Sure American can also (and sometimes does) refer to anyone from any country in the Americas, but a lot of words pull double duty (I bet you didn't think 'duty' meant the same as 'tariff' in this last sentance).
"L" in the beginning of "LGPL" means just what I said.
Sure, but I didn't say "LGPL" i said "GPL" which has one "L" in it and it means "License"
"L" at the end of GPL still doesn't mean "limited".
No it means "license" and that license means YOU DON"T OWN IT. it is LICENCED TO YOU according to the TERMS of the license.
That license includes terms that say "you may X provided you Y. "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program... provided that you also meet certain conditions. Either provide the source code, offer the source code at cost or pass on the offer of source code (if you are distributing a binary you got from someone else)
With "fair use", you can edit and even sell the movie you edited as long as you establish that you've edited it.
And why wouldn't that apply to Linux as well? "Oh, I'm sorry, this edited copy of Linux I'm selling to you was edited under my "fair use" rights to edit and resell - Not under the rights licensed to me by the GPL terms, so I don't need to provide the source to you. Apparently when the authors asserted in the GPL that I DIDN'T have the right to edit and redistribute aside from the license they forgot my fair use right to do so." I suppose to be honest, I would have to download a new original for each edited copy I sold so I'm not making multiple copies of a single original (which wouldn't be covered by fair use)
I'll admit I am playing the devils advocate here. Just to point out that it is the much maligned concept of intellectual property rights that makes GPL style licenses and open source possible. Slashdotters often take such an expansive view of Fair Use as to make those rights a dead letter. Taken to an extreme it is ultimately even more damaging to the open source movement than it is to closed source software whose "intellectual property rights" are protected not only by force of copyright law but by the simple expedient of only being available as binaries. Information may want to be free but when that information is a computer program that desire can be frustrated.
I knew my BFA (Bachelor of Fine Arts) would finally come in handy in a /. post. ;)
GPL == General Public License I have no idea what "GPL" you are talking about but it is something different from what everyone else on this board has been talking about.
For instance, if somebody drew a mustache on Mona Lisa prints, and sold those, you could raise an entire generation of folks who threw out what was good about the Mona Lisa because Leonardo's mustache drawing abilities were clearly sub-par.)
What if you editted the moustache off of Marcel Duchamp's DaDa masterpiece L.H.O.O.Q? And can Duchamp's estate sue warhol's over his L.H.O.O.Q?
GPL 101: The GPL is all about allowing and enhancing ones ability to alter and redistributable works.
But only with the creators permission and limited by terms set by the creator (thus the "L" in GPL). If you can alter the work WITHOUT THE CREATORS PERMISSION there is nothing stopping me from releasing my own distribution of any open source project as a closed source binary.
f altered distribution becomes legal, we won't need copyleft, because copyright won't mean anything anyway.
But in that world what is stopping me from redistributing my altered version of Linux as a closed source binary?