I fail to see a connection there - radio is a broadcast medium, which (theoretically) allows "the government" to reach "the people" in times of emergency. An iPod is, unless I've missed something somewhere, simply a device for listening to music.
This is school we're talking about. Being talented and creative are dangerous and not recommended. Trying hard only means that you wasted more of your time than the next guy.
That depends on whether your in school simply to get a grade and a ticket to a job, or to actually learn something.
My own feeling is that, given the amount of money and time that gets invested in the average college degree, you might as well learn something. Will it make you more likely to get a job than the next guy? Probably not. But it is likely to make you a more valuable employee in the long term (if money's what you care about), and more effective at achieving your own long-term goals in life as well.
Well, apparently you can "make cold", and get chemicals to move from stable to less-stable forms. You've just described two processes that do it. Have we observed them in "nature"? Not to my (limited) knowledge. Does that mean they're not possible in nature? No. Otherwise they wouldn't be possible for humans either. Natural "laws" don't have "loopholes".
Look at how much MS or Apple have given back to BSD...
You mean like this? Not that I'm claiming that the BSD license is better than the GPL or vice versa. Just trying to point out the fact that Apple has been pretty good about contributing back to the community, regardless of the license.
Uh... having actually worked on the development of MER, I can tell you "NASA got lucky". Which is not to say that there weren't a bunch of incredibly talented people working on the project, or that the rovers are not well designed. But the rovers were never expected to work this long (lucky that winds seem to have cleaned the dust off the solar arrays). And there were many things that could have gone wrong (many not under the control of the design team - particularly during entry/descent/landing - surface wind speed for example) that fortunately didn't. Landing on Mars is hard!
Not quite sure why this was modded funny. Well ok, actually I am. But regardless, this is a good idea. I wonder why no-one's done it yet. Seems like an obvious way to fund exploratory and scientific missions that don't have support from "the public" (i.e. congress), but still have a wide audience.
Yes. That's why it's a question, not a fact, or even a hypothesis, isn't it? I did not say "you will get xxx", or "you will not get xxx". I said "whether or not you get xxx is a separate question from the point that you are debating".
I don't have any answers to that question (although I am curious as to why people saw fit to create copyright in the first place, if it didn't increase the kind, quantity, or quality of art available - that might help answer the question).
My point which I've had to repeat over and over again is that art/ideas/creativity existed before copyright/IP law. And also will continue to exist if these things are removed.
And my point did not negate your point. Nor did it seek to. My point was that your point has little to do with copyright law as it exists right now.
I don't see any reason to get personal but if you think this method of attack somehow strengthens whatever argument you have, you are wrong.
I was not attempting to attack you, nor to make an argument. I was simply trying to ascertain the context in which your views about copyright and creation were formed. It is easy to talk about the relationship "creativity" and money in the abstract when one is not depending on their creativity to supply their livelihood.
Currently I'm a mathematics major at university, I have yet to publish but when I do of course it will be public domain
Have you actually looked at the copyright clauses for most academic journals? Don't count on your publications being public domain (although your ideas may well be). Having said that, I should note that in fact you are being paid (by the university, and by funding agencies you get grants from) to produce those ideas. Would you still be creating and openly publishing your ideas if you weren't being funded to do it?
My point which I will repeat one last time is creativity is instilled in the human condition. A person does not first become aware of his material needs then create art to fulfill them.
Which is true. I haven't denied that. The problem is that people do have material needs. And having created something which others feel is valuable, and from which they might thereby derive some material wealth, they understandably want to be recompensed for the time and effort that went into creating whatever it is they have come up with, so that they might live to create further things. Creativity may well be "instilled in the human condition", but so is the desire to stay alive.
Actually sometimes its the opposite where in the complete desperation of material and spiritual wealth, something beautiful is created.
Which is very easy to say when you are not the one suffering from the lack of material and spiritual wealth.
I did not say that copyright was the only thing keeping creativity alive. My point was that nothing is forcing you to use the art produced by those who do choose to use the existing copyright law. Nor is there anything forcing you not to use the art produced by those who don't believe in copyright law.
Art would not cease to exist. Whether or not you would get the same kind, quantity, or quality of art is a whole other question.
BTW, just out of interest, how much art (and/or other "intellectual property") do you regularly produce and give away? Or do you simply consume?
Will you please get the point that artists who are not the majority sometimes are willing to starve for their art.
And there's nothing stopping them from doing that right now. However, under copyright law, people who don't want to starve can also produce art. No one's forcing you to buy their stuff - you can choose only to support starving artists if you prefer. Or not support those same starving artists, if you want to just make make use of their work without paying them for it.
Please try to get over the misconception that NASA is the only agency in the US that does things in space. NASA is a civil agency. It does not do military work. Most of its employees are not cleared. Military space work (like SDI aka BMDO aka MDA) is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind of mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express. One would imagine that Secret Service satllites would be handled by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), since it's their job to develop and operate satellites that image the Earth.
the USA is fully
engaged in the militarization of space
They may well be. But NASA's mission has nothing to do with that. NASA is a civil agency. Military space work is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind if mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express.
Photons of light impart force, not just the solar wind.
Not only that, solar photons impart about an order of magnitude more force on a solar sail than the solar wind. In fact, solar sails are propelled by solar photons. The solar wind has a negligible effect (confusion arises because people seem to assoociate "sail" with "wind"). So the lack of solar wind in LEO would make no difference at all. What might make a difference is the massive area-to-mass ratio of the solar sail, and the correspondingly high atmospheric drag that would cause a LEO solar sail to deorbit fairly rapidly.
No, it would still be VOIP - assuming of course that you actually used the IP in your Sneakernet transactions. Sneakernet merely provides the physical and datalink layers.
I think programmers are willing to shake things up, but it seems that the further up the chain you go the more they resist change.
Really? Based on the opinions expressed in this thread, it seems like many programmers don't want to shake things up. They just want to blame bad software on bad management.
Which bridge would you prefer to walk across? The one developed by throwing things together until the 'design' passed all of the tests the designers could think of and had time to run? Or the one developed by designers who understood what they were doing, and developed a design that they are confident will work under a wide range of conditions? I know which one I'd pick.
BTW, it is a myth that the application of formal methods to software design takes longer than build-and-test. In fact, there's good empirical evidence that it takes the same (or less) time and money, and results in significant reductions in defect rates. I've mentioned some examples elsewhere in this thread.
Where are the equations to calculate how I should build my server so that it will not crash when given every possible sequence of input? They don't exist.
Don't exist? Or is it simply that you don't know about them? You might start by looking here. Plenty of different methods for mathematically modeling all sorts of systems (yes, including servers).
Where is the possibility to test a scale model? There's no such thing, anything else than the server itself doesn't guarantee anything.
Try building a more abstract (mathematical) model first. For example, I've developed extremely complex multi-threaded apps (upwards of 1200 threads, all interacting with each other) by doing some intial modeling in CSP to ensure that the interactions between threads wouldn't result in deadlock or other nastiness. Does it result in zero defects? No. Does it radically reduce the number of defects, and shorten the test/debug cycle? YES!
Oh how I hate when people claim that the silver bullet of defect-free software not only does exist, but is available for everyone instantly once they just snap out of the "programmer" mindset and start behaving like an "engineer". The comparable engineering tools are missing, dammit! And there's no guarantee that they are even possible to create (any more than e.g. algorithmic AI).
Oh how I hate it when people claim that anyone is saying there are silver-bullet techniques that guarantee defect-free software. They're not dammit! They're saying that it is possible to do (much) better than we do now. Even "real" engineers produce defective products sometimes (why else do we have product recalls, and spacecraft flying into planets). But a lot fewer than software developers. I also hate it when people claim that comparable engineering tools are missing, apparently without bothering to see if that assertion is actually true.
The software industry is too competitive. You can process a rock solid product in time A and a cost B. But there 50 other ompanies out there that will say we can do it in A/2 and at a cost of B/4. It doesn't matter that you gave realistic estimates. Unless you have good raport with that customer, they will go for the one that says they can develope faster and cost less.
And yet, there is empirical evidence that the application of formal methods not only doesn't take longer than the traditional approach, it can actually take less time (and result in lower costs). I've mentioned a few exmaples elsewhere in this thread.
The software industry is too competitive. You can process a rock solid product in time A and a cost B. But there 50 other ompanies out there that will say we can do it in A/2 and at a cost of B/4. It doesn't matter that you gave realistic estimates. Unless you have good raport with that customer, they will go for the one that says they can develope faster and cost less.
And they will get burned, and get what they paid for. But that doesn't mean that (a) you should also be a customer like that, and (b) that you should defraud your own customers. Demand better software, and produce better software. Don't just accept the status quo.
Perhaps you should actually take the time to look at what formal methods are available for software development (try here for starters). These methods have been applied to real software developments. They have delivered lower defect rates. There is empirical evidence that it can be done, and that it works. I don't need to "propose" anything.
As an aside, if you think other engineering efforts don't require "invention" every time you undertake the process, then you don't understand the design process at all. There's always more than one way to solve a problem. A large part of the engineering process is examining the available ways (and considering if there are new ways), and selecting the "best" one. By definition if you are engineering a new product, it has not been designed before (otherwise why not just build from the plans for the existing product).
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see a connection there - radio is a broadcast medium, which (theoretically) allows "the government" to reach "the people" in times of emergency. An iPod is, unless I've missed something somewhere, simply a device for listening to music.
It may well be "magic" to you. But that in no way, shape, or form makes it a "loophole" in the laws of nature.
That depends on whether your in school simply to get a grade and a ticket to a job, or to actually learn something.
My own feeling is that, given the amount of money and time that gets invested in the average college degree, you might as well learn something. Will it make you more likely to get a job than the next guy? Probably not. But it is likely to make you a more valuable employee in the long term (if money's what you care about), and more effective at achieving your own long-term goals in life as well.
Since when was the iPod "infrastructure"?!
Well, apparently you can "make cold", and get chemicals to move from stable to less-stable forms. You've just described two processes that do it. Have we observed them in "nature"? Not to my (limited) knowledge. Does that mean they're not possible in nature? No. Otherwise they wouldn't be possible for humans either. Natural "laws" don't have "loopholes".
Granted. But at least you can look at their source.
You mean like this? Not that I'm claiming that the BSD license is better than the GPL or vice versa. Just trying to point out the fact that Apple has been pretty good about contributing back to the community, regardless of the license.
Uh... having actually worked on the development of MER, I can tell you "NASA got lucky". Which is not to say that there weren't a bunch of incredibly talented people working on the project, or that the rovers are not well designed. But the rovers were never expected to work this long (lucky that winds seem to have cleaned the dust off the solar arrays). And there were many things that could have gone wrong (many not under the control of the design team - particularly during entry/descent/landing - surface wind speed for example) that fortunately didn't. Landing on Mars is hard!
Not quite sure why this was modded funny. Well ok, actually I am. But regardless, this is a good idea. I wonder why no-one's done it yet. Seems like an obvious way to fund exploratory and scientific missions that don't have support from "the public" (i.e. congress), but still have a wide audience.
Yes. That's why it's a question, not a fact, or even a hypothesis, isn't it? I did not say "you will get xxx", or "you will not get xxx". I said "whether or not you get xxx is a separate question from the point that you are debating".
I don't have any answers to that question (although I am curious as to why people saw fit to create copyright in the first place, if it didn't increase the kind, quantity, or quality of art available - that might help answer the question).
And my point did not negate your point. Nor did it seek to. My point was that your point has little to do with copyright law as it exists right now.
I don't see any reason to get personal but if you think this method of attack somehow strengthens whatever argument you have, you are wrong.
I was not attempting to attack you, nor to make an argument. I was simply trying to ascertain the context in which your views about copyright and creation were formed. It is easy to talk about the relationship "creativity" and money in the abstract when one is not depending on their creativity to supply their livelihood.
Currently I'm a mathematics major at university, I have yet to publish but when I do of course it will be public domain
Have you actually looked at the copyright clauses for most academic journals? Don't count on your publications being public domain (although your ideas may well be). Having said that, I should note that in fact you are being paid (by the university, and by funding agencies you get grants from) to produce those ideas. Would you still be creating and openly publishing your ideas if you weren't being funded to do it?
My point which I will repeat one last time is creativity is instilled in the human condition. A person does not first become aware of his material needs then create art to fulfill them.
Which is true. I haven't denied that. The problem is that people do have material needs. And having created something which others feel is valuable, and from which they might thereby derive some material wealth, they understandably want to be recompensed for the time and effort that went into creating whatever it is they have come up with, so that they might live to create further things. Creativity may well be "instilled in the human condition", but so is the desire to stay alive.
Actually sometimes its the opposite where in the complete desperation of material and spiritual wealth, something beautiful is created.
Which is very easy to say when you are not the one suffering from the lack of material and spiritual wealth.
Art would not cease to exist. Whether or not you would get the same kind, quantity, or quality of art is a whole other question.
BTW, just out of interest, how much art (and/or other "intellectual property") do you regularly produce and give away? Or do you simply consume?
And there's nothing stopping them from doing that right now. However, under copyright law, people who don't want to starve can also produce art. No one's forcing you to buy their stuff - you can choose only to support starving artists if you prefer. Or not support those same starving artists, if you want to just make make use of their work without paying them for it.
Please try to get over the misconception that NASA is the only agency in the US that does things in space. NASA is a civil agency. It does not do military work. Most of its employees are not cleared. Military space work (like SDI aka BMDO aka MDA) is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind of mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express. One would imagine that Secret Service satllites would be handled by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), since it's their job to develop and operate satellites that image the Earth.
They may well be. But NASA's mission has nothing to do with that. NASA is a civil agency. Military space work is done through the Air Force and the Navy (primarily the Air Force). The Air Force has its own programs for demonstrating the kind if mission that NASA is doing with DART: look up XSS-11, and Orbital Express.
Not only that, solar photons impart about an order of magnitude more force on a solar sail than the solar wind. In fact, solar sails are propelled by solar photons. The solar wind has a negligible effect (confusion arises because people seem to assoociate "sail" with "wind"). So the lack of solar wind in LEO would make no difference at all. What might make a difference is the massive area-to-mass ratio of the solar sail, and the correspondingly high atmospheric drag that would cause a LEO solar sail to deorbit fairly rapidly.
And, just to please the slashbots, note that it wouldn't be "stealing" if another band used your material, it would be "copyright infringement".
Well, the OSS world certainly doesn't face those restrictions, does it ;)
And, interestingly enough, MS Research now employs a lot of the formal methods gurus, inclusing Tony Hoare and Leslie Lamport.
No, it would still be VOIP - assuming of course that you actually used the IP in your Sneakernet transactions. Sneakernet merely provides the physical and datalink layers.
Really? Based on the opinions expressed in this thread, it seems like many programmers don't want to shake things up. They just want to blame bad software on bad management.
BTW, it is a myth that the application of formal methods to software design takes longer than build-and-test. In fact, there's good empirical evidence that it takes the same (or less) time and money, and results in significant reductions in defect rates. I've mentioned some examples elsewhere in this thread.
How many houses spontaneously fall down?
Don't exist? Or is it simply that you don't know about them? You might start by looking here. Plenty of different methods for mathematically modeling all sorts of systems (yes, including servers).
Where is the possibility to test a scale model? There's no such thing, anything else than the server itself doesn't guarantee anything.
Try building a more abstract (mathematical) model first. For example, I've developed extremely complex multi-threaded apps (upwards of 1200 threads, all interacting with each other) by doing some intial modeling in CSP to ensure that the interactions between threads wouldn't result in deadlock or other nastiness. Does it result in zero defects? No. Does it radically reduce the number of defects, and shorten the test/debug cycle? YES!
Oh how I hate when people claim that the silver bullet of defect-free software not only does exist, but is available for everyone instantly once they just snap out of the "programmer" mindset and start behaving like an "engineer". The comparable engineering tools are missing, dammit! And there's no guarantee that they are even possible to create (any more than e.g. algorithmic AI).
Oh how I hate it when people claim that anyone is saying there are silver-bullet techniques that guarantee defect-free software. They're not dammit! They're saying that it is possible to do (much) better than we do now. Even "real" engineers produce defective products sometimes (why else do we have product recalls, and spacecraft flying into planets). But a lot fewer than software developers. I also hate it when people claim that comparable engineering tools are missing, apparently without bothering to see if that assertion is actually true.
And yet, there is empirical evidence that the application of formal methods not only doesn't take longer than the traditional approach, it can actually take less time (and result in lower costs). I've mentioned a few exmaples elsewhere in this thread.
The software industry is too competitive. You can process a rock solid product in time A and a cost B. But there 50 other ompanies out there that will say we can do it in A/2 and at a cost of B/4. It doesn't matter that you gave realistic estimates. Unless you have good raport with that customer, they will go for the one that says they can develope faster and cost less.
And they will get burned, and get what they paid for. But that doesn't mean that (a) you should also be a customer like that, and (b) that you should defraud your own customers. Demand better software, and produce better software. Don't just accept the status quo.
As an aside, if you think other engineering efforts don't require "invention" every time you undertake the process, then you don't understand the design process at all. There's always more than one way to solve a problem. A large part of the engineering process is examining the available ways (and considering if there are new ways), and selecting the "best" one. By definition if you are engineering a new product, it has not been designed before (otherwise why not just build from the plans for the existing product).