No, a strawman is designed to shift focus away from the issues at hand
Not to be too picky, but you are referring to a diversion. Feel free to look up strawman argument, but typically is means proposing an argument that is counter to the position held, one you expect to be cut down, like a "straw man" in battle.
Based on your response to my clarification on what was the actual theoretical component of "physical ownership" you seemed rather clear that you were not actually proposing ownership as you originally presented. I think that it is clear from your response that we are actually saying the same thing. Ownership, as you were proposing is a manifestation of a set of theoretical concepts called "laws" and a society that can be either complicit with those laws and/or can be compelled via some form of enforcement to obey these laws.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anything we need to be discussing regarding this point.
You really see no problem here? Ever heard of the problem of scarcity of art? Scarcity is a major cornerstone of modern economics, and art simply doesn't have it naturally. Without scarcity the only money comes from weak economic aberrations like charity, which while it may work acceptably for a while, it is not at all reliable and not particularly fair (i.e. representative of effort). It's a problem to which we have a solution: copyright. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. If you wish to replace copyright, you must replace it, not just throw it away, and hope something will step into its place.
No, I really see no problem. As far as I can tell, there are scarce resources (people) creating art in multiple media. Some of those media retain the scarcity of their creations (statues, paintings, carvings, installations, books, performances, feel free to add to this), and others can produce or share the products of their work in media that offers no intrinsic limit on the number of copies that can be produced of the work (digital recordings, software, images, movies, etc.) The different media obey different laws. Physical media obeys physical laws, the "Copying" media does not. In both case there are opportunities to be exploited to profit.
As far as fairness, I must take a rather large amount of offense with your contrived protection of entitlements to these "artists" you seem to be representing. Personally, I get paid for my time, most people do. I see no, absolutely none (mind you I USED to think otherwise), justification as to why somebody who produces something copyable is entitle to anything more than payment for their time. Now, feel free to call me an idiot for not exploiting the copyright system to seek my fortunes, but as I have already said: copyright is a contrivance (sure go ahead say all law is a contrivance, that is sure to lead to a far more insightful discussion), it is not a "natural" law based on ability of the individual. It is a particular business model hard-coded into various government documents. You may say that this is a fair-deal agreement to promote the production of more works that can be copyrighted, I beg to differ. In the end we are not going to agree on this. Your other points about "value of copyright" and "it's the only way that works" and so forth I have heard ad-nauseum. I very much used to believe the same arguments, but they simply do not ring true. As far as the proposition that I, or anyone else, need be compelled to replace copyright with something else we can call copyright is simply not true. It certainly is possible (I'm not saying probable) to simply dissolve copyright. If you'd like to see discussion that is more in-depth on this particular issue you should visit the "Question Copyright" web site. It is often described on that site that whatever new law becomes the "replacement" of copyright would support the notion of sharing so profoundly as to require that the law not be referred to as a copyright law. Also, that is
You're quite astute, but not quite astute enough. I wasn't actually saying in that paragraph that we should adjust those laws because physical property is just as theoretical. I was saying that the theoretical nature of IP should not be a reason in itself to discount it, because physical property is equivalent in that criterion. I don't presume that that would be enough to make a vacuous argument in favour of IP.
So it's agreed then, you original argument was a straw man.
One would hope that with the expansion of the human brain would come other solutions to the marketability problem of art.
I see no current, nor future problem marketing art, regardless of the medium. Different media will impose different constraints on how you can market it, no problem.
Right now, all we have is one working system, a couple of highly experimental, barely tested systems, and a large group of people saying the system in place now is crap without any working system to compete with it.
This is another straw man: we have the status quo and the status quo is crap we need another system that can replace the status quo but otherwise be just like the status quo.
Firstly, new business models not based on selling copies are emerging. FLOSS is already doing it, a number of musicians are figuring things out. This trend will continue. Saying that there is nothing to compete with it is hyperbole.
I'm not blindly devoted to traditional copyright models, I've just yet to see a system that works any better.
It is happening, RadioHead and Nine Inch Nails are doing rather well with their disintermediated copy selling. No, not everyone will be able to use the same approach as these guys, so what? Selling recordings of music for a living didn't happen until the technology came to be, and it changed the world, we're in another transition. It is happening, bit by bit, but adaptation takes time. There are still musicians out there who, given the chance, would outlaw computers because they can make copies of their recordings. The transition we are in the middle of is the end of days for the "recording artist". It is nobody's fault, but technology has been produced and adopted that undermines old business practices: boo hoo. We have absolutely no obligation to support business models that fail to adapt to new realities.
As for "working better", well, that's a subjective measure I can't really address, but I feel rather confident that people will be able to figure out how to exploit the new technologies to make a buck. It is already happening.
That's the future, this is now. We can drop copyright law just as easily later, when it becomes a hindrance, as we can now.
One would expect that, if, new laws were to be written up on copyright that we should expect a reasonable shelf-life for them. If we have some degree of enlightenment on the subject of the nature of "copying" things right now, and that insight is clearly telling us that, at least as far as non-physical entities are concerned, our traditional views on copyright are simply wrong, or perversely misguided, then what is the justification that society sanction the capricious granting of monopoly rights (i.e. the copyright) to individuals who create works exclusively in the medium of "copying". It sounds like a pretty bad deal. If your argument is because we have people making money because of copyright, then you are explicitly asking society to subsidize a set of businesses by exchanging their ability to exploit the extended medium of mind and ideas (i.e.: computers, the Internet, various and growing number of interconnected electronic devices and people and all the emerging technologies that gets us closer and closer to having our minds "on-line") for "tradition's" sake. In short: why should I, or you, be so willing to sacrifice our ability to maximize the utility of the Internet and related and su
Basically, physical property is already a theoretical concept independent from tangible objects. You may own that kilogram of potatoes, but there is nothing physical in your ownership. If someone steals your potatoes, they don't instantly own them; you still do (you just no longer have possession of them). Just because it's easy to take property doesn't mean that we should align ownership with possession. That would destroy the point of property and negate the vast positives of defining property. It would also be cheaper in terms of enforcement and chances for civil system abuses (ala RIAA lawsuits) to ignore property, but we have decided that those costs are vastly outweighed by the benefits. If as many people were to commit physical theft as people currently commit copyright infringement, I would bet my bottom dollar there would be moves to abolish physical property to be in synch with the fickle nature of possession.
A few corrections, and a disagreement:
The laws defining entitlement to physical property is the theoretical concept, physical possession or indisputable control over physical objects is indistinguishable from "ownership" without laws, a society that recognizes them, and enforcement. The necessity of "ownership" of physical objects begins with that our bodies are physical in nature and at least in need of physical support (food, shelter, clothing). Beyond basic physical needs we are in the realm of accumulating wealth. I would say that your claim that we would adjust the laws that govern physical property to be in-line with the rules that could conceivably be applied to non-physical goods is, at best, a straw-man, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.
The interesting thing about the "laws" mentioned before, is that the laws themselves, the very concepts, are NOT governed by the law it encodes! Everyone can own a copy of the law. This is why:
IP is relatively new, and difficult to enforce. Therefore it is not currently as entrenched in our morality, and a community of infringers has been allowed to form in the absence of adequate enforcement. IP could reflect society if society started to support IP law, like we did with the concept of property, and like physical property, we could benefit from it's addition to property law. The current abnormally high rate of abuse once it's refined and enforced properly, like physical property is. To quote the old propaganda "You wouldn't steal a car..."
Is substantially a non-starter. The fact that non-physical, trivially-copyable, inherently shareable "things" (we call them thoughts or ideas in the past, today that expands to cover externalized thoughts and ideas we call, generically, data, but that data can be decoded in special ways to be interpreted as music, images, documents, etc.) that simply do not remotely posses ANY of the characteristics that the objects that the above mentioned laws apply to have always been with us. In short form: we have been in the presence of this problem since the beginning of time. Consider this: I walk into a store and pick up a book and start to read it. A copy (not a perfect copy mind you, but a copy never-the-less) in entering my skull. Now, today you're likely to say: this situation isn't applicable, there are no laws that govern this kind of copying. Imagine the day, not too far off then, in fact, it would be possible to make perfect copies as you read, through either worn external augmentation or embedded technology.
Your argument is one of re-imposing the model of "scarce goods", which is not a good long-term strategy, as it is antithetical to the expansion of the ability of the human brain. Like it or not, computers, and all the external gadgetry we are accumulating are coarse approximations of what the future will hold. Idea copying will be the norm, not the exception. You may then say that, in an analogue to my comments above, having a copy is not the same as ownership, well, eventually, yes, it wil
Well, that's really not a fair comparison. I certainly agree that casual profanity is almost certainly scrubbed on Wikipedia, and certainly they are not neutral, nobody is, never will be. Also, we're all hypocrites, so what? The distinction is that casual profanity is not needed as part of the general scholarly record maintained by Wikipedia, certainly there are ways to record most of the knowledge of human-kind without the use of profanity. On the other hand, part of the record of Mohammad IS illustrations of him. Now, you could go down the line of reasoning that including illustrations of Mohammad is not necessary, but that would be true of any entry on Wikipedia. The illustration contributes to the value of the entry whereas casual profanity does not, in general. However, there may be perfectly good entries in Wikipedia where casual swearing could be used to underscore and contribute to an entry. Each case should be judged independently, and with a highly open mind.
Strictly speaking this is not true. There will probably come a time in the future, especially in Europe where it's all GSM, where Apple will have to play nice-nice with unlocked phones. Or mroe importantly, for customers who have GSM phones that need them unlocked to get on different GSM providers overseas. It is inevitable that Apple will eventually have to stop being dorks. Certainly, one can hope this will be true.
I do understand about the "many intelligent people still believing in a 'god'" and so on and so forth. I used to be one of them. Trust me, I've tried the "dialog" or "tread lightly" approach, that does not work either. What I've learned over the years while trying to limit the influence and damage of these "crazy" and harmful ideas is this: the issue must be addressed head-on and no quarter is to be granted.
Most of those "intelligent people" that your refer to are "too far gone", and will either simply continue to believe in the non-existent and "live accordingly" or worse, they will "project" a life according to the precepts of the mythological as mandatory. I can live in "peace" with the former but the later need to be confronted as sociopaths, for they are sick and dangerous people.
"Intelligent design" has been thoroughly discredited, not only lacking of merit, but in fact, part of a larger more dangerous agenda: the imposition of the biblical account of creation (the work of humans) as "fact" despite being devoid of any supporting evidence.
Humans have adjusted to the loss of the flat Earth, and the earth not being the center of the universe, and the fact that the stars are not pin-pricks of light shining down from "heaven", "we" can survive accepting the scientific take of the history on this planet, and the evolutionary development of spices.
"Creationists" open up a museum to promote an utterly non-scientific interpretation of the history of life on this planet. I take out the time to (yet again) point out that the fundamental precepts of their philosophy are baseless (and probably harmful), therefore their museum is nothing but an organized disinformation campaign. And I get marked as flamebait. That just sucks.
Simply makes no sense, there is an obvious, perpetual,and profound flaw in the craziness that is Christianity and Judaism (other religions as well, some for the same some for different reasons): their "God" simply cannot exist, certainly not as described. The general belief in the "Almighty" ascribes "all knowing" (omniscience) and "all powerful" (omnipotence) properties to this "God" thing. At the same time this "God" thing "created" us with "free will" (whatever that is, a definition is not necessary, but suffice to say that "free will" implies an inability to make precise predictions about the behavior and actions of creatures endowed with such a property), but...
Omniscience excludes "free will" as your "fate" (heaven/hell) has been known from the beginning of time, you never had a chance otherwise. If this is NOT the case then the "God" thing is not omniscient, inconsistent with the "all knowing" claim (more on this later). Also, one could argue that a "God" thing could choose to NOT exercise it's omniscient abilities, however:
a) This does not change the issue of fate since all fates COULD be know, should the "God" thing choose to know it.
b) Being omniscient this "God" thing would already know that it would or would not change "its mind" at some point, so if the decision to "remain in the dark" was made then it would be "forever".
c) Choosing to "remain in the dark" by this "God" thing has profound implications (more in a bit)
Omnipotence also excludes "free will" as any omnipotent being would be able to grant itself omniscience, see omniscience argument above. If this "God" thing cannot grant itself "omniscience", then it is not omnipotent.
So either we have "free will" and this "God thing" is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, therefore not "almighty", or we do not have "free will" and choice is irrelevant, you are going to heaven or hell since the beginning of time.
So, you can keep your "God" thing and nothing you do has any affect on your choices in the "afterlife" or your claims about this "God" thing are profoundly false.
Implications for the non-omniscient "God" thing: if this "God" thing cannot "know" complete "rightness" or "wrongness" (I will not define these words, in this context I would venture to say that no meaningful definitions can be given), it can make mistakes, therefore is not "perfect". So, it is therefore possible that the "God" thing's judgement can be in error. So an eternity in "heaven" or "hell" can be granted in "error".
Bottom line: it's all a bunch of nonsense, you might as well believe in leprechauns. And the practice and spread of this kind of thinking is harmful as it asks people to voluntarily give up rational thought. As it relates to this post about a "Creationism Museum", this is just yet another sad waste of human potential, and useless disinformation to be sending out to people.
RE: Business vs. ??? -- Let's stop this rather useless split -- in the end we're talking about some address on the Web. Although the sources of funding can be different, they are ultimately irrelevant; each site will make their own decision about what policies they will take with regard to censorship. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has chosen not to provide a "Chinese government compatible" version of their encyclopedia. That is their (the Wikipedia Foundation) prerogative. I personally support this position as well. Why? simple really: fighting the common denominator forces that would have Wikipedia stripped of all useful content (or nearly all). Chinese say "make this stuff appease us" Country X says: "while you are at it put that stuff back in about the flat Earth" Religious group Y says: "re-edit Wikipedia to denounce Evolution as part of the devil's conspiracy", and so on. Wikipedia has made a decision to fight the forces of non-education. If this is part of some "American policy of forcing their way of life into other parts of the world", stop thinking that way: 1) you DON'T have to use Wikipedia. 2) If you don't like what Wikipedia says about X or Y then contribute edits. Don't be surprised if there are those in the world who don't agree with you. Such is life.
RE: Some vs. No information: I can understand those who would like to see a more "compromising" position on in the China vs. Wikipedia issue, but there really is no practical way this would work. Since anyone could edit (and they [Wikipedia] are NOT about to change that policy, thank goodness) eventually even "approved" content would "slip" into disapproval status. It would be a nightmare to manage this. Not to mention the likely moral dilemma of having to lie to millions of Chinese citizens (there may be a billion plus Chinese, but only a few million have Internet access). Some may say that editing article in Wikipedia to conform to Chinese censorship rules is not "lying" to the Chinese people, simply creative editing. You are all free to think that way, I don't and I will call you on it. In the end there is no truly happy middle here: the pressures are always going to be on expanding the information presented to the Chinese people. Wikipedia would simply be cut off again.
RE: Country X's views trampling on the "needs"/"wants"/"desires"/"morals"/"ethics" of country or group Y via Wikipedia: To those who take this position: speak for yourself, only please. Let those around you decide for themselves if they find Wikipedia useful or not or an "encroachment" of some form or not. If you don't like Wikipedia, don't use it. For those of use who use Wikipedia we have no obligation to see things "your way". If you don't like an entry in Wikipedia, make an edit. If it gets reversed, sorry, others may disagree, leave a comment on the page discussion, be vocal. But the ludicrous idea the Wikipedia should be stripped down into version that please the senses of N different groups is unthinkable. In the end there will be entries you won't like, but there will be many entries that you DO like. The important thing is that Wikipedia is there collecting this information in the first place.
The fact is that the GPL protects the "freedoms" of users by actually emancipating the software itself - through the user! A close analogy is the emancipation of slaves: former slave owners lose freedoms they once enjoyed (owning slaves). Arguably, one could view this is a situation where *some* are now less free (because they cannot own slaves anymore).
The same is true with GPLed software: no, you are not as free as someone using MIT or BSD licensed software because you cannot go subterranean with the source code and your changes.
For those poor hardware manufacturers who are lusting after some GPL protected software I can see several options:
1. Forgo the GPLed software and get a closed-source alternative. 2. Contact the owners of the software and see if you can get the software under a more "friendly" license. For the Linux kernel that would be difficult if not impossible. 3. Embrace the GPL and move forward into a net freer world despite, like slave owners, you cannot use GPLed software in a closed system.
Now, arguably, somebody is going to point out that by taking the stance I've just outlined then I'm contributing to pressures to move *some* manufacturers away from using FL/OSS (e.g. GPLed) software. That may be true. But I'll take some loss of gadgets and gizmos, perhaps even large systems, to maintain the freedoms that the GPL and similar licenses try to ensure.
In the end I believe that the pressures to "go free" and to "let tinker" will eventually win out for all, including the manufacturer. Consider Id: do they get calls about user mods based on their game engines? Maybe a few, but the overwhelming positive results of user mods makes it a no-brainer: enable the mods.
As far as entertaining the example from the original post. I wouldn't waste too much mental energy on it. And if the blurb really came from Linus, then here's a message to Linus: get over it, the example you created may be short-term significant, but, if free software eventually is successful, long-term irrelevant.
Could you imagine the action shots that could be faked for this thing?
- Pointing the "transmitter" and "receiver" through a fish tank. - "Cooking" co-workers through cubicle walls - Powering my microwave with microwaves! - Seeing how many metal surfaces you could bounce the microwaves off of and still power your Xbox. - Turning on fluorescent lights in your neighbor's house.
Firstly people, please THINK before dropping your favorite high-level language or uber-run-time in as the way to go: perl, python, ruby, java,.NET all started out in, or continue to be, or continue to rely on code written (usually) in C (some in C++). This stuff, in tern, relies on a C runtime library that gives you all malloc, free, sprintf, etc. It may be ugly, but it is there. Then, of course you (probably) are running on some version of Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, Windows, etc. All written in C (and YES the under-lying OSes all have different levels of intrinsic stability, I know, and so do you, please no comments about this they're not productive).
My point is this: if your favorite high-level language and/or run-time is "ultra stable" then how was this accomplished in poor old C/C++? At the very least C/C++ was involved somewhere in the lifetime of these products.
I'm now going to regurgitate some already existing comments and ad a few of my own:
- Yes, as others have said, do consider using a well tested higher-level language/run-time to glue stuff together and optimize where you can. Since you said that you can't do that, I guess C++ it is. - Yes, use external components that have a long track record of being "functionally" stable. - Testing is great, and using test driven development is a good idea and I certainly would make this this the central "arch" of your development efforts. - FORMAL development has been demonstrated to give the most consistently good results in terms of "quality" of produced code. What I mean by this is to the extent possible: PROVE the correctness of your code, formally. There are plenty of books to help you get started. A place to start would be David Gries' book "The Science of Programming", and excellent text that will make you a better programmer no matter what. - Since you like I are human an imperfect it is in your best interest to assume that failures will happen. Then I would suggest KISS (keep it simple stupid). Build individual parts that are VERY simple, easy to understand, and highly unlikely to fail individually and assemble them into more complicated systems. Again, the idea is that along with each assembly step keep the individual assembly steps as simple as possible. - Code defensively in two domains: Exceptions/failures - to the extent possible write your code to be able to identify and recover when failure has occurred. ALSO, and this is as equally important: Sanity checks - wherever possible DON'T trust the results from each of your components. Wherever you can implement sanity checks on incoming values from each one of your modules. This will go a long way to helping identifying where a 36 hour computation went wrong. - Log, log, log. You won't get it right the first time but the more information you have to fix your mistakes the better.
In order to help you assemble a lot of simple parts you may want to consider Linda (C-Linda and C++-Linda also exist). It might make building your system easier.
- the various broadcast flag attempts - closing the analog hole - freeze "time" and compel "customary" uses of media - RIAA/MPAA suits against "some" customers - Trying to export the DMCA (thankfully, with some failures)
Success in:
- The DMCA is on the books - The Sonny Bono copyright extension act - RIAA/MPAA suits against "some" customers (yes, they have been able to get settlements in a number of cases, so their activity is not harmless, more later) - Getting more Broadcast flag/analog hole legislation in the pipeline
In general, I would say that we have agreement on the point that "eventually" most of this nonsense will fall by the wayside, but the by the copyright extension act is probably here for good, and the DMCA will take a decade or so to be neutralized (this crust is pretty thick). You, I and the general/. community are aware and informed about these issues, but the vast majority of the general public are not. Nor do they understand the implications of these threats so they don't know why they should resist them in the first place. In the mean time we have security and academic researchers concerned about disclosing information that might make them subjects of DMCA lawsuits (remember the the DVD audio watermarking fiasco a few years ago?, cracking Acrobat reader?, the MPAA was even able to haul DVD Jon into court despite the fact that there were no local laws [other than theft of copyrighted materials] applicable).
Now, for the next WHILE we DO have the DMCA on the books. It is THE singular law that enables United States citizens to be legally forbidden to circumvent DRM. It is literally the only "practical" impediment that gives DRM teeth in the first place. The entire discussion we are having, the whole reason why the the anti-DRM clause is in the GPLv3 in the first place is exactly BECAUSE of the legal environment. Resistance to this wrong-headed thinking needs to happen on every front possible: Content creators (as Linus has said) need to release their works in such a way that DRM cannot be applied to their works. Those who provide the active "tools" (software/hardware) that can be used to DRM encumber "stuff" (music, videos, books, other software) have to take a stand and say that their tools cannot be used in a fashion that takes away the rights of users. The anti DRM-clause is simply this, it is yet another way to resist.
Again, remember, DRM is only a threat, substantially in the US, because of the DMCA. It gives teeth to iTunes (use hymn people!) making it "legitimate", it is what makes all of this supposedly "trusted" hardware "trusted" because there are legal ramifications (suites, fines, prison time) worth paying for. Without the DMCA anybody can circumvent any DRM with impunity and this whole ire-raising issue would be moot.
Regarding the "successful" lawsuits carried out by the RIAA/MPAA, some of the settlements were reached without even reaching the level of evidence that would be required in court. Merely the suit was enough. Lawsuits are expensive, not everyone can afford to defend themselves, and some of the folks sued did, in fact, infringe on copyrights. It is a shotgun approach to "addressing" their "problem" (which is that their very industry is on the verge of irrelevance), but has not made its way into the mental space of the general public yet. Oh, by the way, the MPAA/RIAA are fueled by your capital as well.
The reasons why such a clause is in the GPLv3 is because "we", certainly in the US, and potentially elsewhere as well, are going to be living in this environment for a while. Taking the academic position that it will sort itself out in the end is not productive, nor inspires leadership. Say what the hell you want about RMS, but he is trying to address an issue that he perceives as an immediate threat to users of free software NOW. Don't be surprised if other FLOSS licenses follow suit.
So in the end, I've gone from a mindless RMS BBS bot to
You're free to have an axe to grind with RMS, that I can do nothing about. I guess now it's my turn to make stupendously broad, ill-informed, unjustified, inexplicable but clearly penetrating, enlightening, and "on-the-mark" comment about you, my friend, someone whom I only know as a series of pixels on the screen. But somehow I know you completely already, just as you know me, isn't that right?
Aside from the blather about various political positions you ascribe to RMS, and I guess by extension, to me, I think your take is weak, at best.
Let me start with I'm no Marxist, I am a free-market thinker. That said I insist that the markets in question actually be FREE (as in liberty for the consumers of the produce of such a market, and that the rules of the marketplace enable, support, encourage, and make possible the freedom to compete). So, my knee-jerk, reactionist, pattern-matcher, I happen, just happen to agree with the fact that DRM is anti-competitive, anti-free market, so does the FSF. So what? What? you afraid that that others applying their clearly inferior little grey cells couldn't possibly come to the same conclusion? Please, sit down before you hurt yourself.
Let me clue you in on a few pieces of my digging into what is happening with DRM (most of the "engaged" community of/. seems to be clued into this, alas you aren't): Your "Capitalism 101" (please, someone slap this elementary school poser) don't, or should I say, won't be applicable here son. All of that "capital" coming out of our pockets is being used to buy legislation that will change the very nature of your "Capitalism 101" course. (DMCA, Sonny Bono copyright extension act, the RIAA/MPAA are trying to close the analog hole, sue their customer base into accepting their antiquated and now obsolete business model, and finally they are trying to stop the march of technological progress by making it illegal to do ANYTHING "non-customary" with their "content"). I guess in your way of looking at this we sheep sit around and wait for "the market" to produce a messiah that will figure out how to move the market forward and profit so well that they will be able to afford all the legal battles necessary to change the "rules".... back? or forward?
Please, give me a break. Don't flame bait if you can't take the heat. Please, DO think for yourself and refrain from making accusations about who's in who's "bed" and what color their underwear is. (By the way exactly how did you know that about RMS?). Please DO think for yourself and stop bantering about meaningless cliches like "Marxist fanatic"; RMS is who he is, you don't have to agree with him, or even like the man, but stop dismissing via labels, and by extension folks like me who just happen to, yes, AGREE in large part with the philosophical positions taken by the FSF. Perhaps if you weren't so damn patronizing in your response you might find it enlightening to hear my of-the-wall quackery as to why I have this agreement. I think you would find my reasoning to be quite non-Marxist. Instead you just pissed me off.
Um, other OSS licenses, what's that? No. Such things exist? Wow, the FSF has been feeding me the line that there is only the GPL (and the LGPL for those who want to commit little sins). Where the hell do you get off on this? Who hired you to be teacher? Here you go fool: I'm writing this on my HP laptop on my custom build Gentoo Ricer Gentoo distro. Gentoo has a nice on-line package DB that has explicit listing of the various licenses for the packages: click, read, learn. HOLY SHIT! EVERY MAJOR DISTRIBUTION out there has the same thing. Wait! Sourceforge and Freshmeat also have that. Then there's all of those developer mailing-lists that I'm on that have discussions about the pros/cons of various licenses every so often. I guess that isn't enough for the likes of "high-brows" such as yourself, forgive me, I shall double my efforts.
By the way: Linus *IS* off the mark on DRM. The fact that *he* has drawn the arbitr
The issue with Freedom 0 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is that IF I can run any "free" software that I want then I can run it for any purpose. Additionally, The other freedoms that the GPL is trying to preserve come into play: I start with the ability to run "free" program X. Because it is "free" (as in GPLv3) I can modify it (Freedom 1) and still retain FREEDOM 0! If DRM gets in the way of this then by definition some or all of my freedoms have been taken away.
So, does this mean I can tell hardware manufacturers what to do, or for that matter can I tell other software vendors that I have to interact with via my "free" program what to do. Yes and no. I can certainly TELL them anything I want, try to stop me. But they are not obligated to do as I tell them. In the case of hardware vendors I WILL NOT BUY THEIR HARDWARE! Get enough people to follow suit, and you bet I can tell them what to do. Same is true for software.
Now what the GPLv3 is basically saying is that you can write DRM code protected under GPLv3, you can even DRM the code itself. But such measures are academic as you cannot use such encumbrances to take away any freedoms. So, you are still free to write anything you want, modify anything you want, run anything you want. You are NOT free to take such rights away from others.
I stand firmly on my point: Linus does not get it (there appears to be evidence that he never got it) and he is off the mark by a wide margin on the GPLv3.
Now for those who construe value in the various DRM initiatives, that can see value for those OTHER than the publishers of DRM-encumbered stuff. I truly and sadly pity you. Think of the world 5-10 years hence. How may DRM schemes will be out there? 50? 100? 200? 1000? All of them will eventually be defeated. You and I pay for all of this wasted effort. To what end? Corporations and other businesses make their money off of you and I, dear reader, you would be surprised that you can make a difference by insisting such nonsense (DRM) not be tolerated, it certainly serves YOU no purpose. DRM is a war being waged on consumers, developing such systems COSTS money that gets passed on to you but provides NO benefit you YOU as consumer. Please, I beg you you, dear reader, if you are drawing any other conclusion then you are delusional to the point of needing professional help. Don't accept DRM because big companies like Apple, Microsoft, Intel, etc. say you have to so get used to the idea. Resist this stupid, ill-conceived idea that provides no practical benefit to you, makes using a computer a hassle, takes away control of hardware you own outright, and in the end will cost a fortune to produce and maintain only to be eventually defeated.
Granted vandalism can AND does happen on WikiPedia, in fact on ANY Wiki, I found tons of vandalism on PHPWiki's site a few months back. I just edited it out.
When this dude came across the scandalous entry about him he should have edited it, and left a note in the page discussion. Even if it was four months after it was published.
Believe it or not I was not intending my original post to be flamebait (sorry if I gave that impression), but I was truly exasperated about someone whining about something said about them on WikiPedia; edit it, please.
As far as entries about "persons" not everything on WikiPedia (or any other Wiki) will be to your liking. Unfortunately, that's life my friend: not everyone will share your opinion about yourself (or others). You can contribute your edits, but the public may override you. There may be a lesson to learn here.
The bottom line is obvious to all/.-ers: there is NO perfect system to publish information, but I'll take information I can critically edit any day over "one-way" publishing systems.
'When the mainstream media addressed the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair -- he's the respected journalist who wrote an op-ed in USAToday complaining that slanderously wrong information about him was in Wikipedia for four months'
Stupid f*cker. It's 'WikiPedia' moron. Edit it. ALL WRITTEN WORK WILL HAVE ERRORS! WikiPedia gives YOU the chance to fix them.
The patent system is intrinsically unfair, and "wrong" (for some appropriate definition of "wrong" that does not mean "right"). It stimulates both unhealthy individual thought as well as destructice social and economic activity.
Hate to say it, but the cure of HIV/AIDS will not be FOUND by private companies! It WILL be found by basic researchers around the world supported by public funds. The "drug" companies will be responsible for finding a workable mass-production process, like they do in 99.99% (hyperbole, I agree but the percentage is quite large) of all drugs out there.
Bottom line: "Drug" companies are responsible for about 5% of the truly NEW drugs out there, 95% originate in basic research labs. The "drug" companies are mostly a "theme-and-variation" business: producing one drug then making a million variants of that drug (don't get me wrong, this is usually, but not always, VERY IMPORTANT WORK! Don't confuse this with "new" drugs though).
... how one set of bad legislation deserves another...
No, really. How about this for stifling innovation: repeal the F**KING DMCA, and make those who are claiming copyright infringement provide proof, as in proof, in court that their claims are valid. As opposed to everyone being already found guilty (DRM, and if you break it you pay! Sorry, Mr./Ms. for doing this but if, while you were sending cash our way, you didn't also rape us poor little megacorporations we wouldn't have to defend ourselves so), and having to prove our innocence.
Wow, what a novel idea! I think I'll call it a once-apon-a-time dream of the American justice system.
Look, I'm about as "geeky" as the next Joe/., but I just ain't giving up real books, no way no how!
Real books: - No format problems -- I will always be able to read them - No external power needed to read them -- Sunlight is fine, otherwise your lighting source of choice - No F*CKING DRM! -- I will be able to read them as often as I want, share them with anyone I want, sell them to anyone I want, copy them for fair use, etc. - I can WRITE ON THEM with anything I want: Pencil, pen, highlighter, crayon, blood. - I can relish them as objects and pass them on to my children.
e-Books: HAS NOT A SINGLE ATTRIBUTE from my "Real book" list! NOT ONE!
The fact that I *may* at the publishers discretion be able to copy *some* of the book via a clipboard or extract facility is NOT a compelling feature when I can choose to copy an ENTIRE printed book via scanner+OCR. If I keep such a copy for personal use only then that is within my fair use as I am backing up the material!
eBooks are just BAD! Don't buy them, don't endorse them, don't use them!
I agree, certainly, about the necessity for it to happen, both on a philosophical and piratical level. On the philosophical level it needs to happen to eliminate this absurdity in our legal system. Patent litigation is on the rise because the granting of patents introduces a singularity into what is suppoed to be an open competitive market. If you can pre-exclude competition then you eliminate competition from the market place. Yo may benefit but the market does not. Also the granting of such a legal object (a patent) can introduct a wildy disproportionate amount of marketplace contol to the grantee.
The other philosophical problem has to do with the fundamental unsoundness of a patent grant in the first place. A patent grant essentially idea ownership for some period of time. So I sound like a hippie when I say this but: "you can't own ideas, man." This concept is crazy. I'll present only a concrete argument regarding this, the more esoteric arguments are left up to the reader. I have this philosophical construct called the tyranny of time and space: I am who I am because of the luck of me being born where I was and when I was. Starting from that point I developed as a person and began to formulate my own ideas. At some point, say at the age of 20, I come across a great idea for a product and I go into business making this product. I get served a suit because my product infringes on somebody's patent filed when I was 10. Now the idea is min, *I* came up with it, it was independent of the patenters effort, besides I was 10 at the time the patent I'm now "infringing" on was granted. I am now the victim of the time/space event that originated in my existence. This is bad.
The piratical necessity is that with so many patents out there, a rapidly growing number of poorly issued patents our legal system in this regard is being reduced to absurdity.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree as there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that actually says this. But many arguments that resulted (Thomas Jefferson was the source of many of these arguments) in the Constiutional article that grants the governement the right to issue patents centered around this idea. So I would not agree with your flat-out "Nope... it was never". I would say that the idea of protecting the individual inventer was and perhaps is among the reasons for the patent system.
Shortining the term makes sense, but there is a danger (read: slippery-slope) because the nature of reality is that new fields of "patentable ideas" are arising all the time this could result in endless patent time-line fragmentations.
RE: Trade Secret and "theft" -- This is not "theft" if there is no notion of ownership in the first place so I disagree with this characterization. In fact this is why you had no legal recourse. Trade secret only ment that a few people knew about the details of the product and/or service and decided not to share this infromation. Eventually, the information gets out...
There is no way to "enforce" "novel and useful" both are subjective and there is no a-priori way to determine this. It's only after the fact (of the patent grant) can one asses this.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to be too picky, but you are referring to a diversion. Feel free to look up strawman argument, but typically is means proposing an argument that is counter to the position held, one you expect to be cut down, like a "straw man" in battle.
Based on your response to my clarification on what was the actual theoretical component of "physical ownership" you seemed rather clear that you were not actually proposing ownership as you originally presented. I think that it is clear from your response that we are actually saying the same thing. Ownership, as you were proposing is a manifestation of a set of theoretical concepts called "laws" and a society that can be either complicit with those laws and/or can be compelled via some form of enforcement to obey these laws.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see anything we need to be discussing regarding this point.
No, I really see no problem. As far as I can tell, there are scarce resources (people) creating art in multiple media. Some of those media retain the scarcity of their creations (statues, paintings, carvings, installations, books, performances, feel free to add to this), and others can produce or share the products of their work in media that offers no intrinsic limit on the number of copies that can be produced of the work (digital recordings, software, images, movies, etc.) The different media obey different laws. Physical media obeys physical laws, the "Copying" media does not. In both case there are opportunities to be exploited to profit.
As far as fairness, I must take a rather large amount of offense with your contrived protection of entitlements to these "artists" you seem to be representing. Personally, I get paid for my time, most people do. I see no, absolutely none (mind you I USED to think otherwise), justification as to why somebody who produces something copyable is entitle to anything more than payment for their time. Now, feel free to call me an idiot for not exploiting the copyright system to seek my fortunes, but as I have already said: copyright is a contrivance (sure go ahead say all law is a contrivance, that is sure to lead to a far more insightful discussion), it is not a "natural" law based on ability of the individual. It is a particular business model hard-coded into various government documents. You may say that this is a fair-deal agreement to promote the production of more works that can be copyrighted, I beg to differ. In the end we are not going to agree on this. Your other points about "value of copyright" and "it's the only way that works" and so forth I have heard ad-nauseum. I very much used to believe the same arguments, but they simply do not ring true. As far as the proposition that I, or anyone else, need be compelled to replace copyright with something else we can call copyright is simply not true. It certainly is possible (I'm not saying probable) to simply dissolve copyright. If you'd like to see discussion that is more in-depth on this particular issue you should visit the "Question Copyright" web site. It is often described on that site that whatever new law becomes the "replacement" of copyright would support the notion of sharing so profoundly as to require that the law not be referred to as a copyright law. Also, that is
So it's agreed then, you original argument was a straw man.
I see no current, nor future problem marketing art, regardless of the medium. Different media will impose different constraints on how you can market it, no problem.
This is another straw man: we have the status quo and the status quo is crap we need another system that can replace the status quo but otherwise be just like the status quo. Firstly, new business models not based on selling copies are emerging. FLOSS is already doing it, a number of musicians are figuring things out. This trend will continue. Saying that there is nothing to compete with it is hyperbole.
It is happening, RadioHead and Nine Inch Nails are doing rather well with their disintermediated copy selling. No, not everyone will be able to use the same approach as these guys, so what? Selling recordings of music for a living didn't happen until the technology came to be, and it changed the world, we're in another transition. It is happening, bit by bit, but adaptation takes time. There are still musicians out there who, given the chance, would outlaw computers because they can make copies of their recordings. The transition we are in the middle of is the end of days for the "recording artist". It is nobody's fault, but technology has been produced and adopted that undermines old business practices: boo hoo. We have absolutely no obligation to support business models that fail to adapt to new realities. As for "working better", well, that's a subjective measure I can't really address, but I feel rather confident that people will be able to figure out how to exploit the new technologies to make a buck. It is already happening.
One would expect that, if, new laws were to be written up on copyright that we should expect a reasonable shelf-life for them. If we have some degree of enlightenment on the subject of the nature of "copying" things right now, and that insight is clearly telling us that, at least as far as non-physical entities are concerned, our traditional views on copyright are simply wrong, or perversely misguided, then what is the justification that society sanction the capricious granting of monopoly rights (i.e. the copyright) to individuals who create works exclusively in the medium of "copying". It sounds like a pretty bad deal. If your argument is because we have people making money because of copyright, then you are explicitly asking society to subsidize a set of businesses by exchanging their ability to exploit the extended medium of mind and ideas (i.e.: computers, the Internet, various and growing number of interconnected electronic devices and people and all the emerging technologies that gets us closer and closer to having our minds "on-line") for "tradition's" sake. In short: why should I, or you, be so willing to sacrifice our ability to maximize the utility of the Internet and related and su
A few corrections, and a disagreement:
The laws defining entitlement to physical property is the theoretical concept, physical possession or indisputable control over physical objects is indistinguishable from "ownership" without laws, a society that recognizes them, and enforcement. The necessity of "ownership" of physical objects begins with that our bodies are physical in nature and at least in need of physical support (food, shelter, clothing). Beyond basic physical needs we are in the realm of accumulating wealth. I would say that your claim that we would adjust the laws that govern physical property to be in-line with the rules that could conceivably be applied to non-physical goods is, at best, a straw-man, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.
The interesting thing about the "laws" mentioned before, is that the laws themselves, the very concepts, are NOT governed by the law it encodes! Everyone can own a copy of the law. This is why:
Is substantially a non-starter. The fact that non-physical, trivially-copyable, inherently shareable "things" (we call them thoughts or ideas in the past, today that expands to cover externalized thoughts and ideas we call, generically, data, but that data can be decoded in special ways to be interpreted as music, images, documents, etc.) that simply do not remotely posses ANY of the characteristics that the objects that the above mentioned laws apply to have always been with us. In short form: we have been in the presence of this problem since the beginning of time. Consider this: I walk into a store and pick up a book and start to read it. A copy (not a perfect copy mind you, but a copy never-the-less) in entering my skull. Now, today you're likely to say: this situation isn't applicable, there are no laws that govern this kind of copying. Imagine the day, not too far off then, in fact, it would be possible to make perfect copies as you read, through either worn external augmentation or embedded technology.
Your argument is one of re-imposing the model of "scarce goods", which is not a good long-term strategy, as it is antithetical to the expansion of the ability of the human brain. Like it or not, computers, and all the external gadgetry we are accumulating are coarse approximations of what the future will hold. Idea copying will be the norm, not the exception. You may then say that, in an analogue to my comments above, having a copy is not the same as ownership, well, eventually, yes, it wil
Well, that's really not a fair comparison. I certainly agree that casual profanity is almost certainly scrubbed on Wikipedia, and certainly they are not neutral, nobody is, never will be. Also, we're all hypocrites, so what? The distinction is that casual profanity is not needed as part of the general scholarly record maintained by Wikipedia, certainly there are ways to record most of the knowledge of human-kind without the use of profanity. On the other hand, part of the record of Mohammad IS illustrations of him. Now, you could go down the line of reasoning that including illustrations of Mohammad is not necessary, but that would be true of any entry on Wikipedia. The illustration contributes to the value of the entry whereas casual profanity does not, in general. However, there may be perfectly good entries in Wikipedia where casual swearing could be used to underscore and contribute to an entry. Each case should be judged independently, and with a highly open mind.
Strictly speaking this is not true. There will probably come a time in the future, especially in Europe where it's all GSM, where Apple will have to play nice-nice with unlocked phones. Or mroe importantly, for customers who have GSM phones that need them unlocked to get on different GSM providers overseas. It is inevitable that Apple will eventually have to stop being dorks. Certainly, one can hope this will be true.
Thank you for your comment.
I do understand about the "many intelligent people still believing in a 'god'" and so on and so forth. I used to be one of them. Trust me, I've tried the "dialog" or "tread lightly" approach, that does not work either. What I've learned over the years while trying to limit the influence and damage of these "crazy" and harmful ideas is this: the issue must be addressed head-on and no quarter is to be granted.
Most of those "intelligent people" that your refer to are "too far gone", and will either simply continue to believe in the non-existent and "live accordingly" or worse, they will "project" a life according to the precepts of the mythological as mandatory. I can live in "peace" with the former but the later need to be confronted as sociopaths, for they are sick and dangerous people.
"Intelligent design" has been thoroughly discredited, not only lacking of merit, but in fact, part of a larger more dangerous agenda: the imposition of the biblical account of creation (the work of humans) as "fact" despite being devoid of any supporting evidence.
Humans have adjusted to the loss of the flat Earth, and the earth not being the center of the universe, and the fact that the stars are not pin-pricks of light shining down from "heaven", "we" can survive accepting the scientific take of the history on this planet, and the evolutionary development of spices.
Flamebait? You have to be kidding!
"Creationists" open up a museum to promote an utterly non-scientific interpretation of the history of life on this planet. I take out the time to (yet again) point out that the fundamental precepts of their philosophy are baseless (and probably harmful), therefore their museum is nothing but an organized disinformation campaign. And I get marked as flamebait. That just sucks.
Simply makes no sense, there is an obvious, perpetual,and profound flaw in the craziness that is Christianity and Judaism (other religions as well, some for the same some for different reasons): their "God" simply cannot exist, certainly not as described. The general belief in the "Almighty" ascribes "all knowing" (omniscience) and "all powerful" (omnipotence) properties to this "God" thing. At the same time this "God" thing "created" us with "free will" (whatever that is, a definition is not necessary, but suffice to say that "free will" implies an inability to make precise predictions about the behavior and actions of creatures endowed with such a property), but...
Omniscience excludes "free will" as your "fate" (heaven/hell) has been known from the beginning of time, you never had a chance otherwise. If this is NOT the case then the "God" thing is not omniscient, inconsistent with the "all knowing" claim (more on this later). Also, one could argue that a "God" thing could choose to NOT exercise it's omniscient abilities, however:
a) This does not change the issue of fate since all fates COULD be know, should the "God" thing choose to know it.
b) Being omniscient this "God" thing would already know that it would or would not change "its mind" at some point, so if the decision to "remain in the dark" was made then it would be "forever".
c) Choosing to "remain in the dark" by this "God" thing has profound implications (more in a bit)
Omnipotence also excludes "free will" as any omnipotent being would be able to grant itself omniscience, see omniscience argument above. If this "God" thing cannot grant itself "omniscience", then it is not omnipotent.
So either we have "free will" and this "God thing" is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, therefore not "almighty", or we do not have "free will" and choice is irrelevant, you are going to heaven or hell since the beginning of time.
So, you can keep your "God" thing and nothing you do has any affect on your choices in the "afterlife" or your claims about this "God" thing are profoundly false.
Implications for the non-omniscient "God" thing: if this "God" thing cannot "know" complete "rightness" or "wrongness" (I will not define these words, in this context I would venture to say that no meaningful definitions can be given), it can make mistakes, therefore is not "perfect". So, it is therefore possible that the "God" thing's judgement can be in error. So an eternity in "heaven" or "hell" can be granted in "error".
Bottom line: it's all a bunch of nonsense, you might as well believe in leprechauns. And the practice and spread of this kind of thinking is harmful as it asks people to voluntarily give up rational thought. As it relates to this post about a "Creationism Museum", this is just yet another sad waste of human potential, and useless disinformation to be sending out to people.
RE: Business vs. ??? --
Let's stop this rather useless split -- in the end we're talking about some address on the Web. Although the sources of funding can be different, they are ultimately irrelevant; each site will make their own decision about what policies they will take with regard to censorship. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has chosen not to provide a "Chinese government compatible" version of their encyclopedia. That is their (the Wikipedia Foundation) prerogative. I personally support this position as well. Why? simple really: fighting the common denominator forces that would have Wikipedia stripped of all useful content (or nearly all). Chinese say "make this stuff appease us" Country X says: "while you are at it put that stuff back in about the flat Earth" Religious group Y says: "re-edit Wikipedia to denounce Evolution as part of the devil's conspiracy", and so on. Wikipedia has made a decision to fight the forces of non-education. If this is part of some "American policy of forcing their way of life into other parts of the world", stop thinking that way: 1) you DON'T have to use Wikipedia. 2) If you don't like what Wikipedia says about X or Y then contribute edits. Don't be surprised if there are those in the world who don't agree with you. Such is life.
RE: Some vs. No information:
I can understand those who would like to see a more "compromising" position on in the China vs. Wikipedia issue, but there really is no practical way this would work. Since anyone could edit (and they [Wikipedia] are NOT about to change that policy, thank goodness) eventually even "approved" content would "slip" into disapproval status. It would be a nightmare to manage this. Not to mention the likely moral dilemma of having to lie to millions of Chinese citizens (there may be a billion plus Chinese, but only a few million have Internet access). Some may say that editing article in Wikipedia to conform to Chinese censorship rules is not "lying" to the Chinese people, simply creative editing. You are all free to think that way, I don't and I will call you on it. In the end there is no truly happy middle here: the pressures are always going to be on expanding the information presented to the Chinese people. Wikipedia would simply be cut off again.
RE: Country X's views trampling on the "needs"/"wants"/"desires"/"morals"/"ethics" of country or group Y via Wikipedia:
To those who take this position: speak for yourself, only please. Let those around you decide for themselves if they find Wikipedia useful or not or an "encroachment" of some form or not. If you don't like Wikipedia, don't use it. For those of use who use Wikipedia we have no obligation to see things "your way". If you don't like an entry in Wikipedia, make an edit. If it gets reversed, sorry, others may disagree, leave a comment on the page discussion, be vocal. But the ludicrous idea the Wikipedia should be stripped down into version that please the senses of N different groups is unthinkable. In the end there will be entries you won't like, but there will be many entries that you DO like. The important thing is that Wikipedia is there collecting this information in the first place.
The fact is that the GPL protects the "freedoms" of users by actually emancipating the software itself - through the user! A close analogy is the emancipation of slaves: former slave owners lose freedoms they once enjoyed (owning slaves). Arguably, one could view this is a situation where *some* are now less free (because they cannot own slaves anymore).
The same is true with GPLed software: no, you are not as free as someone using MIT or BSD licensed software because you cannot go subterranean with the source code and your changes.
For those poor hardware manufacturers who are lusting after some GPL protected software I can see several options:
1. Forgo the GPLed software and get a closed-source alternative.
2. Contact the owners of the software and see if you can get the software under a more "friendly" license. For the Linux kernel that would be difficult if not impossible.
3. Embrace the GPL and move forward into a net freer world despite, like slave owners, you cannot use GPLed software in a closed system.
Now, arguably, somebody is going to point out that by taking the stance I've just outlined then I'm contributing to pressures to move *some* manufacturers away from using FL/OSS (e.g. GPLed) software. That may be true. But I'll take some loss of gadgets and gizmos, perhaps even large systems, to maintain the freedoms that the GPL and similar licenses try to ensure.
In the end I believe that the pressures to "go free" and to "let tinker" will eventually win out for all, including the manufacturer. Consider Id: do they get calls about user mods based on their game engines? Maybe a few, but the overwhelming positive results of user mods makes it a no-brainer: enable the mods.
As far as entertaining the example from the original post. I wouldn't waste too much mental energy on it. And if the blurb really came from Linus, then here's a message to Linus: get over it, the example you created may be short-term significant, but, if free software eventually is successful, long-term irrelevant.
Could you imagine the action shots that could be faked for this thing?
- Pointing the "transmitter" and "receiver" through a fish tank.
- "Cooking" co-workers through cubicle walls
- Powering my microwave with microwaves!
- Seeing how many metal surfaces you could bounce the microwaves off of and still power your Xbox.
- Turning on fluorescent lights in your neighbor's house.
... comments and complaints to the contrary.
.NET all started out in, or continue to be, or continue to rely on code written (usually) in C (some in C++). This stuff, in tern, relies on a C runtime library that gives you all malloc, free, sprintf, etc. It may be ugly, but it is there. Then, of course you (probably) are running on some version of Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, Windows, etc. All written in C (and YES the under-lying OSes all have different levels of intrinsic stability, I know, and so do you, please no comments about this they're not productive).
Firstly people, please THINK before dropping your favorite high-level language or uber-run-time in as the way to go: perl, python, ruby, java,
My point is this: if your favorite high-level language and/or run-time is "ultra stable" then how was this accomplished in poor old C/C++? At the very least C/C++ was involved somewhere in the lifetime of these products.
I'm now going to regurgitate some already existing comments and ad a few of my own:
- Yes, as others have said, do consider using a well tested higher-level language/run-time to glue stuff together and optimize where you can. Since you said that you can't do that, I guess C++ it is.
- Yes, use external components that have a long track record of being "functionally" stable.
- Testing is great, and using test driven development is a good idea and I certainly would make this this the central "arch" of your development efforts.
- FORMAL development has been demonstrated to give the most consistently good results in terms of "quality" of produced code. What I mean by this is to the extent possible: PROVE the correctness of your code, formally. There are plenty of books to help you get started. A place to start would be David Gries' book "The Science of Programming", and excellent text that will make you a better programmer no matter what.
- Since you like I are human an imperfect it is in your best interest to assume that failures will happen. Then I would suggest KISS (keep it simple stupid). Build individual parts that are VERY simple, easy to understand, and highly unlikely to fail individually and assemble them into more complicated systems. Again, the idea is that along with each assembly step keep the individual assembly steps as simple as possible.
- Code defensively in two domains: Exceptions/failures - to the extent possible write your code to be able to identify and recover when failure has occurred. ALSO, and this is as equally important: Sanity checks - wherever possible DON'T trust the results from each of your components. Wherever you can implement sanity checks on incoming values from each one of your modules. This will go a long way to helping identifying where a 36 hour computation went wrong.
- Log, log, log. You won't get it right the first time but the more information you have to fix your mistakes the better.
In order to help you assemble a lot of simple parts you may want to consider Linda (C-Linda and C++-Linda also exist). It might make building your system easier.
Hope this helps
Then all is well.
"Trying" applies to:
/. community are aware and informed about these issues, but the vast majority of the general public are not. Nor do they understand the implications of these threats so they don't know why they should resist them in the first place. In the mean time we have security and academic researchers concerned about disclosing information that might make them subjects of DMCA lawsuits (remember the the DVD audio watermarking fiasco a few years ago?, cracking Acrobat reader?, the MPAA was even able to haul DVD Jon into court despite the fact that there were no local laws [other than theft of copyrighted materials] applicable).
- the various broadcast flag attempts
- closing the analog hole
- freeze "time" and compel "customary" uses of media
- RIAA/MPAA suits against "some" customers
- Trying to export the DMCA (thankfully, with some failures)
Success in:
- The DMCA is on the books
- The Sonny Bono copyright extension act
- RIAA/MPAA suits against "some" customers (yes, they have been able to get settlements in a number of cases, so their activity is not harmless, more later)
- Getting more Broadcast flag/analog hole legislation in the pipeline
In general, I would say that we have agreement on the point that "eventually" most of this nonsense will fall by the wayside, but the by the copyright extension act is probably here for good, and the DMCA will take a decade or so to be neutralized (this crust is pretty thick). You, I and the general
Now, for the next WHILE we DO have the DMCA on the books. It is THE singular law that enables United States citizens to be legally forbidden to circumvent DRM. It is literally the only "practical" impediment that gives DRM teeth in the first place. The entire discussion we are having, the whole reason why the the anti-DRM clause is in the GPLv3 in the first place is exactly BECAUSE of the legal environment. Resistance to this wrong-headed thinking needs to happen on every front possible: Content creators (as Linus has said) need to release their works in such a way that DRM cannot be applied to their works. Those who provide the active "tools" (software/hardware) that can be used to DRM encumber "stuff" (music, videos, books, other software) have to take a stand and say that their tools cannot be used in a fashion that takes away the rights of users. The anti DRM-clause is simply this, it is yet another way to resist.
Again, remember, DRM is only a threat, substantially in the US, because of the DMCA. It gives teeth to iTunes (use hymn people!) making it "legitimate", it is what makes all of this supposedly "trusted" hardware "trusted" because there are legal ramifications (suites, fines, prison time) worth paying for. Without the DMCA anybody can circumvent any DRM with impunity and this whole ire-raising issue would be moot.
Regarding the "successful" lawsuits carried out by the RIAA/MPAA, some of the settlements were reached without even reaching the level of evidence that would be required in court. Merely the suit was enough. Lawsuits are expensive, not everyone can afford to defend themselves, and some of the folks sued did, in fact, infringe on copyrights. It is a shotgun approach to "addressing" their "problem" (which is that their very industry is on the verge of irrelevance), but has not made its way into the mental space of the general public yet. Oh, by the way, the MPAA/RIAA are fueled by your capital as well.
The reasons why such a clause is in the GPLv3 is because "we", certainly in the US, and potentially elsewhere as well, are going to be living in this environment for a while. Taking the academic position that it will sort itself out in the end is not productive, nor inspires leadership. Say what the hell you want about RMS, but he is trying to address an issue that he perceives as an immediate threat to users of free software NOW. Don't be surprised if other FLOSS licenses follow suit.
So in the end, I've gone from a mindless RMS BBS bot to
You're free to have an axe to grind with RMS, that I can do nothing about. I guess now it's my turn to make stupendously broad, ill-informed, unjustified, inexplicable but clearly penetrating, enlightening, and "on-the-mark" comment about you, my friend, someone whom I only know as a series of pixels on the screen. But somehow I know you completely already, just as you know me, isn't that right?
/. seems to be clued into this, alas you aren't): Your "Capitalism 101" (please, someone slap this elementary school poser) don't, or should I say, won't be applicable here son. All of that "capital" coming out of our pockets is being used to buy legislation that will change the very nature of your "Capitalism 101" course. (DMCA, Sonny Bono copyright extension act, the RIAA/MPAA are trying to close the analog hole, sue their customer base into accepting their antiquated and now obsolete business model, and finally they are trying to stop the march of technological progress by making it illegal to do ANYTHING "non-customary" with their "content"). I guess in your way of looking at this we sheep sit around and wait for "the market" to produce a messiah that will figure out how to move the market forward and profit so well that they will be able to afford all the legal battles necessary to change the "rules".... back? or forward?
Aside from the blather about various political positions you ascribe to RMS, and I guess by extension, to me, I think your take is weak, at best.
Let me start with I'm no Marxist, I am a free-market thinker. That said I insist that the markets in question actually be FREE (as in liberty for the consumers of the produce of such a market, and that the rules of the marketplace enable, support, encourage, and make possible the freedom to compete). So, my knee-jerk, reactionist, pattern-matcher, I happen, just happen to agree with the fact that DRM is anti-competitive, anti-free market, so does the FSF. So what? What? you afraid that that others applying their clearly inferior little grey cells couldn't possibly come to the same conclusion? Please, sit down before you hurt yourself.
Let me clue you in on a few pieces of my digging into what is happening with DRM (most of the "engaged" community of
Please, give me a break. Don't flame bait if you can't take the heat. Please, DO think for yourself and refrain from making accusations about who's in who's "bed" and what color their underwear is. (By the way exactly how did you know that about RMS?). Please DO think for yourself and stop bantering about meaningless cliches like "Marxist fanatic"; RMS is who he is, you don't have to agree with him, or even like the man, but stop dismissing via labels, and by extension folks like me who just happen to, yes, AGREE in large part with the philosophical positions taken by the FSF. Perhaps if you weren't so damn patronizing in your response you might find it enlightening to hear my of-the-wall quackery as to why I have this agreement. I think you would find my reasoning to be quite non-Marxist. Instead you just pissed me off.
Um, other OSS licenses, what's that? No. Such things exist? Wow, the FSF has been feeding me the line that there is only the GPL (and the LGPL for those who want to commit little sins). Where the hell do you get off on this? Who hired you to be teacher? Here you go fool: I'm writing this on my HP laptop on my custom build Gentoo Ricer Gentoo distro. Gentoo has a nice on-line package DB that has explicit listing of the various licenses for the packages: click, read, learn. HOLY SHIT! EVERY MAJOR DISTRIBUTION out there has the same thing. Wait! Sourceforge and Freshmeat also have that. Then there's all of those developer mailing-lists that I'm on that have discussions about the pros/cons of various licenses every so often. I guess that isn't enough for the likes of "high-brows" such as yourself, forgive me, I shall double my efforts.
By the way: Linus *IS* off the mark on DRM. The fact that *he* has drawn the arbitr
The issue with Freedom 0 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html is that IF I can run any "free" software that I want then I can run it for any purpose. Additionally, The other freedoms that the GPL is trying to preserve come into play: I start with the ability to run "free" program X. Because it is "free" (as in GPLv3) I can modify it (Freedom 1) and still retain FREEDOM 0! If DRM gets in the way of this then by definition some or all of my freedoms have been taken away.
So, does this mean I can tell hardware manufacturers what to do, or for that matter can I tell other software vendors that I have to interact with via my "free" program what to do. Yes and no. I can certainly TELL them anything I want, try to stop me. But they are not obligated to do as I tell them. In the case of hardware vendors I WILL NOT BUY THEIR HARDWARE! Get enough people to follow suit, and you bet I can tell them what to do. Same is true for software.
Now what the GPLv3 is basically saying is that you can write DRM code protected under GPLv3, you can even DRM the code itself. But such measures are academic as you cannot use such encumbrances to take away any freedoms. So, you are still free to write anything you want, modify anything you want, run anything you want. You are NOT free to take such rights away from others.
I stand firmly on my point: Linus does not get it (there appears to be evidence that he never got it) and he is off the mark by a wide margin on the GPLv3.
Now for those who construe value in the various DRM initiatives, that can see value for those OTHER than the publishers of DRM-encumbered stuff. I truly and sadly pity you. Think of the world 5-10 years hence. How may DRM schemes will be out there? 50? 100? 200? 1000? All of them will eventually be defeated. You and I pay for all of this wasted effort. To what end? Corporations and other businesses make their money off of you and I, dear reader, you would be surprised that you can make a difference by insisting such nonsense (DRM) not be tolerated, it certainly serves YOU no purpose. DRM is a war being waged on consumers, developing such systems COSTS money that gets passed on to you but provides NO benefit you YOU as consumer. Please, I beg you you, dear reader, if you are drawing any other conclusion then you are delusional to the point of needing professional help. Don't accept DRM because big companies like Apple, Microsoft, Intel, etc. say you have to so get used to the idea. Resist this stupid, ill-conceived idea that provides no practical benefit to you, makes using a computer a hassle, takes away control of hardware you own outright, and in the end will cost a fortune to produce and maintain only to be eventually defeated.
Granted vandalism can AND does happen on WikiPedia, in fact on ANY Wiki, I found tons of vandalism on PHPWiki's site a few months back. I just edited it out.
/.-ers: there is NO perfect system to publish information, but I'll take information I can critically edit any day over "one-way" publishing systems.
When this dude came across the scandalous entry about him he should have edited it, and left a note in the page discussion. Even if it was four months after it was published.
Believe it or not I was not intending my original post to be flamebait (sorry if I gave that impression), but I was truly exasperated about someone whining about something said about them on WikiPedia; edit it, please.
As far as entries about "persons" not everything on WikiPedia (or any other Wiki) will be to your liking. Unfortunately, that's life my friend: not everyone will share your opinion about yourself (or others). You can contribute your edits, but the public may override you. There may be a lesson to learn here.
The bottom line is obvious to all
'When the mainstream media addressed the John Seigenthaler Sr. affair -- he's the respected journalist who wrote an op-ed in USAToday complaining that slanderously wrong information about him was in Wikipedia for four months'
Stupid f*cker. It's 'WikiPedia' moron. Edit it. ALL WRITTEN WORK WILL HAVE ERRORS! WikiPedia gives YOU the chance to fix them.
The patent system is intrinsically unfair, and "wrong" (for some appropriate definition of "wrong" that does not mean "right"). It stimulates both unhealthy individual thought as well as destructice social and economic activity.
It is long overdue.
Hate to say it, but the cure of HIV/AIDS will not be FOUND by private companies! It WILL be found by basic researchers around the world supported by public funds. The "drug" companies will be responsible for finding a workable mass-production process, like they do in 99.99% (hyperbole, I agree but the percentage is quite large) of all drugs out there.
Bottom line: "Drug" companies are responsible for about 5% of the truly NEW drugs out there, 95% originate in basic research labs. The "drug" companies are mostly a "theme-and-variation" business: producing one drug then making a million variants of that drug (don't get me wrong, this is usually, but not always, VERY IMPORTANT WORK! Don't confuse this with "new" drugs though).
IMNHO
... how one set of bad legislation deserves another...
No, really. How about this for stifling innovation: repeal the F**KING DMCA, and make those who are claiming copyright infringement provide proof, as in proof, in court that their claims are valid. As opposed to everyone being already found guilty (DRM, and if you break it you pay! Sorry, Mr./Ms. for doing this but if, while you were sending cash our way, you didn't also rape us poor little megacorporations we wouldn't have to defend ourselves so), and having to prove our innocence.
Wow, what a novel idea! I think I'll call it a once-apon-a-time dream of the American justice system.
... cold dead hands!
/., but I just ain't giving up real books, no way no how!
Look, I'm about as "geeky" as the next Joe
Real books:
- No format problems -- I will always be able to read them
- No external power needed to read them -- Sunlight is fine, otherwise your lighting source of choice
- No F*CKING DRM! -- I will be able to read them as often as I want, share them with anyone I want, sell them to anyone I want, copy them for fair use, etc.
- I can WRITE ON THEM with anything I want: Pencil, pen, highlighter, crayon, blood.
- I can relish them as objects and pass them on to my children.
e-Books:
HAS NOT A SINGLE ATTRIBUTE from my "Real book" list! NOT ONE!
The fact that I *may* at the publishers discretion be able to copy *some* of the book via a clipboard or extract facility is NOT a compelling feature when I can choose to copy an ENTIRE printed book via scanner+OCR. If I keep such a copy for personal use only then that is within my fair use as I am backing up the material!
eBooks are just BAD! Don't buy them, don't endorse them, don't use them!
IM*H*O
I agree, certainly, about the necessity for it to happen, both on a philosophical and piratical level. On the philosophical level it needs to happen to eliminate this absurdity in our legal system. Patent litigation is on the rise because the granting of patents introduces a singularity into what is suppoed to be an open competitive market. If you can pre-exclude competition then you eliminate competition from the market place. Yo may benefit but the market does not. Also the granting of such a legal object (a patent) can introduct a wildy disproportionate amount of marketplace contol to the grantee.
The other philosophical problem has to do with the fundamental unsoundness of a patent grant in the first place. A patent grant essentially idea ownership for some period of time. So I sound like a hippie when I say this but: "you can't own ideas, man." This concept is crazy. I'll present only a concrete argument regarding this, the more esoteric arguments are left up to the reader. I have this philosophical construct called the tyranny of time and space: I am who I am because of the luck of me being born where I was and when I was. Starting from that point I developed as a person and began to formulate my own ideas. At some point, say at the age of 20, I come across a great idea for a product and I go into business making this product. I get served a suit because my product infringes on somebody's patent filed when I was 10. Now the idea is min, *I* came up with it, it was independent of the patenters effort, besides I was 10 at the time the patent I'm now "infringing" on was granted. I am now the victim of the time/space event that originated in my existence. This is bad.
The piratical necessity is that with so many patents out there, a rapidly growing number of poorly issued patents our legal system in this regard is being reduced to absurdity.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree as there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that actually says this. But many arguments that resulted (Thomas Jefferson was the source of many of these arguments) in the Constiutional article that grants the governement the right to issue patents centered around this idea. So I would not agree with your flat-out "Nope ... it was never". I would say that the idea of protecting the individual inventer was and perhaps is among the reasons for the patent system.
Shortining the term makes sense, but there is a danger (read: slippery-slope) because the nature of reality is that new fields of "patentable ideas" are arising all the time this could result in endless patent time-line fragmentations.
RE: Trade Secret and "theft" -- This is not "theft" if there is no notion of ownership in the first place so I disagree with this characterization. In fact this is why you had no legal recourse. Trade secret only ment that a few people knew about the details of the product and/or service and decided not to share this infromation. Eventually, the information gets out...
There is no way to "enforce" "novel and useful" both are subjective and there is no a-priori way to determine this. It's only after the fact (of the patent grant) can one asses this.