Is this a necessary step these days for independent/homebrew developers, so that their new ideas aren't simply snatched up by the big guys for their own benefit? Or is this move something that should be discouraged in the indie scene?
Discouraged - if nothing else, such a move also stops other independent developers being able to write code that might infringe on the patent.
And anyone who's done any game development should know that ideas are cheap. It reminds me of when people post on forums like Gamedev saying they want to form a team to write the next MMO - it turns out they know nothing about programming, but they insist they have "lots of great ideas". Ideas are cheap. It's spending the time doing the actual programming work to make an implentation and end products that are worth anything. If you have an idea, and someone else uses that to make a better game, then tough luck - I don't see why innovation should be stifled just because someone thinks they had the idea first. I'd also be very surprise if his game doesn't use "ideas" that have appeared in previous games.
Agreed. I'm sure it's a great game, but I don't recall game announcements ever making Slashdot front page, except for perhaps major titles. I mean, I could understand if Duke Nukem Forever had been released...
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Unfortunately the get out clause is "for the protection of health or morals". I've no idea how this has been tested to apply so far in any court cases. With regards to the criminalising of possession of "extreme porn" that I talked about, the Government acknowledges that it violates article 10 (and article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - which has a similar get out clause), but thinks it is justified for the protection of health or morals. The justifications are at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/016/en/08016x-s.htm#index_link_296 .
So we do at least have something, but unfortunately it has this get out clause, and obviously doesn't have anywhere near the same influence and strength as the First Amendment.
However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.
I can't find this in the text, although one could see a country trying to do so under the get out clause. Note that the EHCR doesn't stop countries passing laws that violate it it - it would have to be challenged in court (much like the US where laws are passed then struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). I believe this is unfortunately time consuming and costly. I don't know if anyone's done this yet for laws regarding fictional child drawings.
Fictional child drawings aren't illegal everywhere in the EU - they were considering it in the UK, but they are (for now at least) only criminalising non-realistic images that have been derived from (already illegal) realistic child porn images (as it happens, in the same bill as the "extreme porn" plans).
In 2005 was there were calls for installation of a national porn filter that would be used to prevent access to sites with "violent porn". This was after some girl got killed by some maniac who was "inspired" by "violent porn". The family of the girl was like "BAN ALL PORN! BAN ALL PORN!" or something retarded like that. I haven't kept myself up to date on the current situation in the UK, but last thing i heard they were discussing the possibility of banning even POSSESSION of violent porn.
This is correct, and not just a possibility, it's very likely to become law now. It's passed through the House of Commons (several MPs criticised it and proposed amendments - the law is appallingly badly worded, and even criminalises screenshots taken from legally available films - but it was passed without debate in Parliament, simply because there wasn't time). It's now being discussed in the House of Lords. The Government has said it wants the bill to become law by 8 May.
Still, I don't give up hope - there's still time for people to write to their MP and/or some Lords.
(I posted another comment to this article with more links.)
Whilst that is true, there are some issues specific to software that I think make it different to other patents:
* Software development can be far lower than in other industries - after all, one person and a computer can do it. So the legal fees to research whether a line of code infringes on a patent are far greater in terms of proportion, compared to some multi-million pound drug company or manufacturing company.
* Software seems to be more likely to be built on previous innovations. It's unclear why people should be rewarded when they are building on someone else's work (e.g., the patented shadow algorithm "Carmack's Reverse" in 3D graphics - not patented by Carmack, btw - is a modification of a shadow algorithm which is not patented). It also means that it's harder for new software to avoid building upon previous patented work - unlike hardware, where you can come out with a brand new product. Perhaps it's because software is still at a young age, in that fundamental components are still able to be patented - it's as if you were able to patent things like nuts and bolts, and the process of hammering a nail in.
* Software algorithms are a subset of mathematics. It's not clear how the line is drawn between an algorithm, and any mathematical process, nor is it clear why mathematical knowledge should be seen as an "invention" than can be owned by a person or corporation.
Abolition of Software Patents is just plainly nonsense. Not only because companies will madly lobby to destroy any attempt to do so, but because it's not fair for the rightful owners of software patents who developed software
This is why no software companies dare to trade in that unfair place known as Europe - however do they cope without software patents? It's just plain nonsense!
Well lets say I made a compression algorithm that will lossless compress all data by 1/2 (Yes it is mathmatically impossible, I know) This a new and marvel method. I don't patent it.
Historically, mathematicians (as well as other people like scientists) have never been granted an monopoly on the use of the results of their research, and it's not clear why should that change?
As you acknowledge, it's mathematically impossible, so let's look at a more likely situation: you release your great new application, except big_company comes along and points out a range of other patents of theirs that you are infringing upon.
At best, you might be allowed to cross-licence if you have something they want - in which case, they use your "invention" anyway. Otherwise, you have to stop distributing your product altogether (and hope you don't get sued).
Even if we did accept your hypothetical scenerio - it's not clear that a world where hard drives everywhere have double space is worse than one where the only allowed application of this knowledge is your little app.
It's a minor Private Member bill. It'll get a couple of minutes discussion between three people who happen to be awake when it's time comes and there will be no vote.
Thankfully I suspect you are right. It can pay to keep watch though - every once in a while, the Government leaps onto one of these mad censorship plans, and it slips through the net and becomes unstoppable.
There are lots of things which can't be patented - mathematics, scientific discoveries[*], plot devices in novels or films, methods of trolling Slashdot. Why should software algorithms be an exception to the rule?
(* well, except for genes, but that's mad too IMO.)
They claim they want to give the public more power - in fact, the film was approved years ago after the BBFC relaxed its censorship policies, after consulting with the public. What they actually mean is, they want the power to ban films everytime there is a media uproar from a vocal minority (who haven't even seen the film).
I find the idea of a connection between these films and neo-Nazi groups laughable anyway - as if neo-Nazis are horror film and video nasty fans. Indeed, people who watch these are more likely to be seen as "deviant", and hence more likely to be persecuted by any Nazis anyway!
Another example is the UK and its crusade against naughty porn. Because it apparently turns us English people into violent murderers, if we look at a naughty picture, and OMG won't somebody think of the children who might see it on a website.
Although having said that, the EU does at least give a tool to fight these various kinds of censorship, in that the European Convention on Human Rights at last gives us the right to freedom of expression, among other rights - unfortunately member countries still seem keen on censorship.
b/c you haven't defined what you mean by "evolution," i don't know if your statement is accurate or not. i assume you mean micro- and macro-evolution, in which case you are wrong, imho.
micro-evolution is an observed fact, as far as i'm concerned. it has been tested, it can be replicated, it is rational and there is an abundance of direct evidence to support it. everything is great so far.
macro-evolution, on the other hand, has many gaping holes so big you could drive a slashdot car analogy through them.
perhaps the single biggest hole in macro-evolutionary theory, which i've never heard discussed in public, is that, if true, it strongly suggests a 100% extinction rate of 100% of all transitional entities that led to the species that we observe today
If Dawkins is allowed to be the face of an evolutionary understanding of life
He isn't. This is one (of many) difference from religion - there is no appointed "face", leader or spokesperson. He is just one of many people speaking his point of view. I think it's probably a good thing Dawkins does what he does - I don't agree with everything he says, nor is his method necessarily the right or best way to go about it (he admits he isn't a good politician - he says he's concerned with the truth, not with being political), but there's a place for him as one of many people supporting science and opposing anti-science.
To respond to your later comment - I on the other hand haven't read his books yet, but have watched live debates. I agree with the other comment, he certainly has manners, often more so than those he debates with.
Not all religious people are creationists, and not all scientists are atheists.... Religion and science need not be mutually exclusive pursuits in a person.
Sure, but I don't think he was necessarily talking about all religious people. "Us-versus-them" is not "Atheists vs theists", rather it's "People who use the scientific method, evidence and so on versus People who use religious faith in place of science".
When the likes of Dawkins etc criticise religion, AFAICT they are talking about people who use religion to determine scientific truths. I don't think they want to ban all religion.
People seem to equate intelligent design with pure creationism and it all happend in 6 days and the 7th day god rested. Only real diffrence is that evolutionary theory suggests that everything is completely random and the best pops out as successful. Intelligent design just says that a god pushed the specis to be successful and it wasn't completely random.
You're jumping from one extreme to the other - yes, not all IDers believe in Young Earth Creationism and creating the world in 6 days - but that doesn't mean the rest of them believing in what you describe (i.e., that evolution is true, but God manipulated genetic mutations or other seemingly random things, so they weren't completely random).
Many, if not most, IDers believe that evolution is false. They might believe in "microevolution", they might not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but they specifically make claims that contradict known facts, and disagree with the theory of evolution. If most IDers were as you claim, why would they insist on things like stickers on textbooks to say evolution is only a theory, not a fact? Why would there be such controversy if, as you claim, there "isn't that much diffrent" between them?
(Also note that the version of ID that you describe still isn't science - it's just unfalsifiable conjecture.)
Then I got an Amiga computer, and there was a huge amount of free software, of all varieties. No one ever said "free and open source", and RMS was just the Emacs guy.
Note that there was lots of free-as-in-beer software on the Amiga, but IME there was little that had the source available, that only seemed to be more common by the late 90s. It was a shame - when developers left the platform, there was no way to continue developing their products. I'm sure many of them wouldn't have objected to that (given that they released them for nothing), but they just never thought to do so - so I think Free and Open Source movements have done good in making people aware of the benefits.
I agree with you about how horrible shareware is on Windows though - in the 90s, people were far more like to charge for software that was available for free on platforms like the Amiga. Whilst that has improved a lot now, there is still the problem that "shareware" more likely means time-limited or crippleware. I've noticed this especially with video conversion or DVD tools. The worst thing is that the webpages and documentation are often misleading or dishonest as to what terms the software is available under.
One good thing about free software licences is that if I see something released as BSD or GPL, I know what I'm getting - I'm fed up of seeing something advertised as "freeware", but then you find it's time-limited commercial crippleware rubbish. So I'm far more likely to go for an open source product than a "freeware/shareware" product, even if I have no interest in the source.
Indeed, I would say Free Software shares the good properties of communism.
Tetris Creator OTOH wants the bad properties of communism - he thinks companies deserve being paid money for producing something, even if other people are able and willing to produce the same products for less.
I think the reason Free Software can be seen both as communist and capitalist is because the software can be seen either as a means of production, or an end product. As a means of production, it's available to all. As a product, it's available for nothing - the end result of extreme competition in a free market.
[snotty_iphone_owner]...and his phone can't receive photos as email attachments? What a POS.[/snotty_iphone_owner]
Well this is the thing isn't it - a phone is a device for communication. Even if I do have a smartphone and would much rather use email, my options are limited if I am then restricted only to sending images to other smartphones.
Damned if I know. Damned if I care. Never received or sent a single MMS message since I bought my first cell phone in '99 or so.
I've rarely used it, but I expect more features if I'm paying out hundreds, not less. When I do use it, I don't want to go "Oh sorry I can't - I'm an iphone user".
I could talk about Apple's aesthetics-centric font rendering, the general enjoyability of the multitouch interface, or the quality of the layout engine... but really, it's the illusive "user experience" that makes it.
I see - just like any other time people try to promote Apple, they can never explain it. I'll add trying out an iphone to my list (though I don't know anyone who has one at all), along with all the other phones out there.
Have you tried Opera Mini on a phone, btw? (Not Opera Mobile on a Wii.)
I also don't doubt that you're seeing it through the lens of your own expectations.
Well I'm not the one going on about "illusive "user experience""...
You might not see a difference, but many people do - hence there's not a double standard....
If it's a commercial website, then sure, you'd be profiting from it.
Also there's a point of using their own rules against them. If individuals are expected to abide by copyright laws, it's a double standard if their IP is ripped off by corporations.
Note to mod: "Flamebait" does not mean "I disagree with this post".
It may be irrelevant to you, but it is not irrelevant to everyone - hence why people may support this, but oppose actions against the Pirate Bay. You can't accuse people of having double standards based on your viewpoint!
Actually it keeps coming up as an argument because people often resort to a straw man
It's not a straw man. We know that you don't think cutting off little fingers is okay, and we're not suggesting otherwise - we're asking you why the difference.
IF cutting off pinkies had existed in a culture for 6000 years, and IF cutting off pinkies was never demonstrated to cause long-term harm - then it would be no different
Wait, so you are saying that as long as was culturally accepted, it would be okay to cut off people's little fingers??
Because society has decided that it is not "assault" or "mutilation", but instead something called "circumcision".
If I circumcised you, it would be circumcision. Yes, I know society has decided it's not assault in the case of a baby - I'm asking why the difference. Saying it's not assault for babies "because society has decided that it is not assault" doesn't explain much.
Because society has decided that it is not "assault" or "mutilation", but instead something called "circumcision". Just because it is distasteful to you does not mean everyone shares your opinion.
We may disagree, but don't try to misrepresent my position. I do not oppose it because it is distasteful - what I oppose is chopping off bits of someone else's body without their consent, for no good reason.
The thing is, people like to *pretend* there is a difference
There isn't a difference? Great - I'll plagiarise someone else's material and sell it for loads of money, safe in knowing it's no worse than letting a friend copy a CD of mine. Which in turn, is no worse than ripping the CD I bought to use on my mp3 player.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a necessary step these days for independent/homebrew developers, so that their new ideas aren't simply snatched up by the big guys for their own benefit? Or is this move something that should be discouraged in the indie scene?
Discouraged - if nothing else, such a move also stops other independent developers being able to write code that might infringe on the patent.
And anyone who's done any game development should know that ideas are cheap. It reminds me of when people post on forums like Gamedev saying they want to form a team to write the next MMO - it turns out they know nothing about programming, but they insist they have "lots of great ideas". Ideas are cheap. It's spending the time doing the actual programming work to make an implentation and end products that are worth anything. If you have an idea, and someone else uses that to make a better game, then tough luck - I don't see why innovation should be stifled just because someone thinks they had the idea first. I'd also be very surprise if his game doesn't use "ideas" that have appeared in previous games.
slashvertisement
Agreed. I'm sure it's a great game, but I don't recall game announcements ever making Slashdot front page, except for perhaps major titles. I mean, I could understand if Duke Nukem Forever had been released...
Sadly, you, sir, are incorrect.
Blimey - I always hate it when I make analogies to something which must surely be obviously mad, only for that to end up happening too...
I'm not really sure on this as it was quite a while since i read up on free-speech within the EU.
Article 10 of the ECHR is:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Unfortunately the get out clause is "for the protection of health or morals". I've no idea how this has been tested to apply so far in any court cases. With regards to the criminalising of possession of "extreme porn" that I talked about, the Government acknowledges that it violates article 10 (and article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - which has a similar get out clause), but thinks it is justified for the protection of health or morals. The justifications are at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/016/en/08016x-s.htm#index_link_296 .
So we do at least have something, but unfortunately it has this get out clause, and obviously doesn't have anywhere near the same influence and strength as the First Amendment.
However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.
I can't find this in the text, although one could see a country trying to do so under the get out clause. Note that the EHCR doesn't stop countries passing laws that violate it it - it would have to be challenged in court (much like the US where laws are passed then struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). I believe this is unfortunately time consuming and costly. I don't know if anyone's done this yet for laws regarding fictional child drawings.
Fictional child drawings aren't illegal everywhere in the EU - they were considering it in the UK, but they are (for now at least) only criminalising non-realistic images that have been derived from (already illegal) realistic child porn images (as it happens, in the same bill as the "extreme porn" plans).
In 2005 was there were calls for installation of a national porn filter that would be used to prevent access to sites with "violent porn". This was after some girl got killed by some maniac who was "inspired" by "violent porn". The family of the girl was like "BAN ALL PORN! BAN ALL PORN!" or something retarded like that. I haven't kept myself up to date on the current situation in the UK, but last thing i heard they were discussing the possibility of banning even POSSESSION of violent porn.
This is correct, and not just a possibility, it's very likely to become law now. It's passed through the House of Commons (several MPs criticised it and proposed amendments - the law is appallingly badly worded, and even criminalises screenshots taken from legally available films - but it was passed without debate in Parliament, simply because there wasn't time). It's now being discussed in the House of Lords. The Government has said it wants the bill to become law by 8 May.
Still, I don't give up hope - there's still time for people to write to their MP and/or some Lords.
(I posted another comment to this article with more links.)
Whilst that is true, there are some issues specific to software that I think make it different to other patents:
* Software development can be far lower than in other industries - after all, one person and a computer can do it. So the legal fees to research whether a line of code infringes on a patent are far greater in terms of proportion, compared to some multi-million pound drug company or manufacturing company.
* Software seems to be more likely to be built on previous innovations. It's unclear why people should be rewarded when they are building on someone else's work (e.g., the patented shadow algorithm "Carmack's Reverse" in 3D graphics - not patented by Carmack, btw - is a modification of a shadow algorithm which is not patented). It also means that it's harder for new software to avoid building upon previous patented work - unlike hardware, where you can come out with a brand new product. Perhaps it's because software is still at a young age, in that fundamental components are still able to be patented - it's as if you were able to patent things like nuts and bolts, and the process of hammering a nail in.
* Software algorithms are a subset of mathematics. It's not clear how the line is drawn between an algorithm, and any mathematical process, nor is it clear why mathematical knowledge should be seen as an "invention" than can be owned by a person or corporation.
Abolition of Software Patents is just plainly nonsense. Not only because companies will madly lobby to destroy any attempt to do so, but because it's not fair for the rightful owners of software patents who developed software
This is why no software companies dare to trade in that unfair place known as Europe - however do they cope without software patents? It's just plain nonsense!
Well lets say I made a compression algorithm that will lossless compress all data by 1/2 (Yes it is mathmatically impossible, I know) This a new and marvel method. I don't patent it.
Historically, mathematicians (as well as other people like scientists) have never been granted an monopoly on the use of the results of their research, and it's not clear why should that change?
As you acknowledge, it's mathematically impossible, so let's look at a more likely situation: you release your great new application, except big_company comes along and points out a range of other patents of theirs that you are infringing upon.
At best, you might be allowed to cross-licence if you have something they want - in which case, they use your "invention" anyway. Otherwise, you have to stop distributing your product altogether (and hope you don't get sued).
Even if we did accept your hypothetical scenerio - it's not clear that a world where hard drives everywhere have double space is worse than one where the only allowed application of this knowledge is your little app.
It's a minor Private Member bill. It'll get a couple of minutes discussion between three people who happen to be awake when it's time comes and there will be no vote.
Thankfully I suspect you are right. It can pay to keep watch though - every once in a while, the Government leaps onto one of these mad censorship plans, and it slips through the net and becomes unstoppable.
There are lots of things which can't be patented - mathematics, scientific discoveries[*], plot devices in novels or films, methods of trolling Slashdot. Why should software algorithms be an exception to the rule?
(* well, except for genes, but that's mad too IMO.)
Talking of Nazism, the release of a single Nazi-porn film is causing MPs in the UK to call for new censorship powers.
They claim they want to give the public more power - in fact, the film was approved years ago after the BBFC relaxed its censorship policies, after consulting with the public. What they actually mean is, they want the power to ban films everytime there is a media uproar from a vocal minority (who haven't even seen the film).
Of course they string out Nazism as the worse example, but we know the law won't stop at Nazi films. The Bogey Man, Death Trap, The Evil Dead and Zombie Flesh Eaters are the new "video nasties", along with Manhunt, which was blamed for a murder, even though it was the victim who owned a copy of the game.
I find the idea of a connection between these films and neo-Nazi groups laughable anyway - as if neo-Nazis are horror film and video nasty fans. Indeed, people who watch these are more likely to be seen as "deviant", and hence more likely to be persecuted by any Nazis anyway!
MP Julian Brazier is the prude who wants to control what you watch. Write to your MP if you disagree. The law is currently being debated in Parliament.
Another example is the UK and its crusade against naughty porn. Because it apparently turns us English people into violent murderers, if we look at a naughty picture, and OMG won't somebody think of the children who might see it on a website.
(Said law is currently going through the House of Lords, and if not stopped will be law by 8 May.)
Although having said that, the EU does at least give a tool to fight these various kinds of censorship, in that the European Convention on Human Rights at last gives us the right to freedom of expression, among other rights - unfortunately member countries still seem keen on censorship.
b/c you haven't defined what you mean by "evolution," i don't know if your statement is accurate or not. i assume you mean micro- and macro-evolution, in which case you are wrong, imho.
micro-evolution is an observed fact, as far as i'm concerned. it has been tested, it can be replicated, it is rational and there is an abundance of direct evidence to support it. everything is great so far.
macro-evolution, on the other hand, has many gaping holes so big you could drive a slashdot car analogy through them.
Macroevolution is an observed fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html . Also see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html .
perhaps the single biggest hole in macro-evolutionary theory, which i've never heard discussed in public, is that, if true, it strongly suggests a 100% extinction rate of 100% of all transitional entities that led to the species that we observe today
I don't think it does at all. I don't see why.
If Dawkins is allowed to be the face of an evolutionary understanding of life
He isn't. This is one (of many) difference from religion - there is no appointed "face", leader or spokesperson. He is just one of many people speaking his point of view. I think it's probably a good thing Dawkins does what he does - I don't agree with everything he says, nor is his method necessarily the right or best way to go about it (he admits he isn't a good politician - he says he's concerned with the truth, not with being political), but there's a place for him as one of many people supporting science and opposing anti-science.
To respond to your later comment - I on the other hand haven't read his books yet, but have watched live debates. I agree with the other comment, he certainly has manners, often more so than those he debates with.
Not all religious people are creationists, and not all scientists are atheists. ... Religion and science need not be mutually exclusive pursuits in a person.
Sure, but I don't think he was necessarily talking about all religious people. "Us-versus-them" is not "Atheists vs theists", rather it's "People who use the scientific method, evidence and so on versus People who use religious faith in place of science".
When the likes of Dawkins etc criticise religion, AFAICT they are talking about people who use religion to determine scientific truths. I don't think they want to ban all religion.
People seem to equate intelligent design with pure creationism and it all happend in 6 days and the 7th day god rested. Only real diffrence is that evolutionary theory suggests that everything is completely random and the best pops out as successful. Intelligent design just says that a god pushed the specis to be successful and it wasn't completely random.
You're jumping from one extreme to the other - yes, not all IDers believe in Young Earth Creationism and creating the world in 6 days - but that doesn't mean the rest of them believing in what you describe (i.e., that evolution is true, but God manipulated genetic mutations or other seemingly random things, so they weren't completely random).
Many, if not most, IDers believe that evolution is false. They might believe in "microevolution", they might not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, but they specifically make claims that contradict known facts, and disagree with the theory of evolution. If most IDers were as you claim, why would they insist on things like stickers on textbooks to say evolution is only a theory, not a fact? Why would there be such controversy if, as you claim, there "isn't that much diffrent" between them?
(Also note that the version of ID that you describe still isn't science - it's just unfalsifiable conjecture.)
Then I got an Amiga computer, and there was a huge amount of free software, of all varieties. No one ever said "free and open source", and RMS was just the Emacs guy.
Note that there was lots of free-as-in-beer software on the Amiga, but IME there was little that had the source available, that only seemed to be more common by the late 90s. It was a shame - when developers left the platform, there was no way to continue developing their products. I'm sure many of them wouldn't have objected to that (given that they released them for nothing), but they just never thought to do so - so I think Free and Open Source movements have done good in making people aware of the benefits.
I agree with you about how horrible shareware is on Windows though - in the 90s, people were far more like to charge for software that was available for free on platforms like the Amiga. Whilst that has improved a lot now, there is still the problem that "shareware" more likely means time-limited or crippleware. I've noticed this especially with video conversion or DVD tools. The worst thing is that the webpages and documentation are often misleading or dishonest as to what terms the software is available under.
One good thing about free software licences is that if I see something released as BSD or GPL, I know what I'm getting - I'm fed up of seeing something advertised as "freeware", but then you find it's time-limited commercial crippleware rubbish. So I'm far more likely to go for an open source product than a "freeware/shareware" product, even if I have no interest in the source.
Indeed, I would say Free Software shares the good properties of communism.
Tetris Creator OTOH wants the bad properties of communism - he thinks companies deserve being paid money for producing something, even if other people are able and willing to produce the same products for less.
I think the reason Free Software can be seen both as communist and capitalist is because the software can be seen either as a means of production, or an end product. As a means of production, it's available to all. As a product, it's available for nothing - the end result of extreme competition in a free market.
[snotty_iphone_owner]...and his phone can't receive photos as email attachments? What a POS.[/snotty_iphone_owner]
Well this is the thing isn't it - a phone is a device for communication. Even if I do have a smartphone and would much rather use email, my options are limited if I am then restricted only to sending images to other smartphones.
Damned if I know. Damned if I care. Never received or sent a single MMS message since I bought my first cell phone in '99 or so.
I've rarely used it, but I expect more features if I'm paying out hundreds, not less. When I do use it, I don't want to go "Oh sorry I can't - I'm an iphone user".
I could talk about Apple's aesthetics-centric font rendering, the general enjoyability of the multitouch interface, or the quality of the layout engine... but really, it's the illusive "user experience" that makes it.
I see - just like any other time people try to promote Apple, they can never explain it. I'll add trying out an iphone to my list (though I don't know anyone who has one at all), along with all the other phones out there.
Have you tried Opera Mini on a phone, btw? (Not Opera Mobile on a Wii.)
I also don't doubt that you're seeing it through the lens of your own expectations.
Well I'm not the one going on about "illusive "user experience""...
You might not see a difference, but many people do - hence there's not a double standard. ...
If it's a commercial website, then sure, you'd be profiting from it.
Also there's a point of using their own rules against them. If individuals are expected to abide by copyright laws, it's a double standard if their IP is ripped off by corporations.
Note to mod: "Flamebait" does not mean "I disagree with this post".
That's irrelevant.
It may be irrelevant to you, but it is not irrelevant to everyone - hence why people may support this, but oppose actions against the Pirate Bay. You can't accuse people of having double standards based on your viewpoint!
Actually it keeps coming up as an argument because people often resort to a straw man
It's not a straw man. We know that you don't think cutting off little fingers is okay, and we're not suggesting otherwise - we're asking you why the difference.
IF cutting off pinkies had existed in a culture for 6000 years, and IF cutting off pinkies was never demonstrated to cause long-term harm - then it would be no different
Wait, so you are saying that as long as was culturally accepted, it would be okay to cut off people's little fingers??
I think that's all we need to know.
Because society has decided that it is not "assault" or "mutilation", but instead something called "circumcision".
If I circumcised you, it would be circumcision. Yes, I know society has decided it's not assault in the case of a baby - I'm asking why the difference. Saying it's not assault for babies "because society has decided that it is not assault" doesn't explain much.
Because society has decided that it is not "assault" or "mutilation", but instead something called "circumcision". Just because it is distasteful to you does not mean everyone shares your opinion.
We may disagree, but don't try to misrepresent my position. I do not oppose it because it is distasteful - what I oppose is chopping off bits of someone else's body without their consent, for no good reason.
The thing is, people like to *pretend* there is a difference
There isn't a difference? Great - I'll plagiarise someone else's material and sell it for loads of money, safe in knowing it's no worse than letting a friend copy a CD of mine. Which in turn, is no worse than ripping the CD I bought to use on my mp3 player.