The Fling project already does something like this. Fling protocol is only at the "nice idea" stage yet, and is hosted above the IP level, but it could be used to tunnel IP.
Fling works on a pass-the-parcel principle like Mixmaster, where the message is bounced from one host to another, with each host not knowing if they are the final one in the bounce chain, or from whence the message originated.
It sounds to me like this is yet another attempt to strongarm the internet into playing by "the mainstream"'s rules, by pushing back the hoi polloi who can't make it into some archaic conception of "respectable".
It's just another form of stealth censorship, and it will be just as ineffective as all the other attempts.
The old saying that the internet routes around censorship as a form of damage only has half the picture. The internet isn't vulnerable to this crap, because there is no internet - there are just people, and computers, and the technology to connect them together.
Best solution: ignore the silly buggers. This childish manipulation is too trivial to bother over.
Can someone please port the Thot framework and editor (as used by Amaya) to Gnome-canvas, DSSSL and XML Schemas? Because that is the best structured-document editor out there, but it's tied to the ugly, crashy Motif system and an oddball DTD/stylesheet language all of its very own.
At least somebody is managing to avoid the theft-en-masse of those who want to practise charity with coerced wealth.
All that profit they pocketed means more wealth for them and for any sane trader - and less for corporate welfare, skiving bums, congressional "pork", and wasteful socialist projects to buy a second TV for all teenage black lesbian single mothers in the inner cities.
Where the costs of making something are effectively zero, price tends to zero - because it is always possible to undercut competitors. (The point where the costs are not zero, and the point where the artist can get paid without needing a coercive monopoly, is the point at which they originally release the information.)
So information wants to be both libre and gratuit, once it is accessible.
I think the law of information freedom could be rephrased as "information is a superfluid" - it naturally flows outward to the limits of its bounds, passing through any chinks in the constraints placed on it. Note the implications for information monopolies - information flow can only be blocked by totally controlling all factors that perturb its constraints. In practise this means: only luddites or police states can keep I.P.
Yes, you know what he meant, beacuse he can't concieve of any third state between "you steal from me" and "I steal from you" - the idea of "we neither of us steal, we trade" just hasn't occurred to him.
Besides, technically, Socialism for Corporations is called "mercantilism".
The whole idea of (1)coercive taxes (2)intellectual property is to say that "some of what's yours is mine". Once you allow that, the door's open to a tug-o-war between pressure groups, as to how much of whose property isn't their own. The squeaky wheel gets YOUR grease.
The man's entitled to cheerlead for his own team, and so's his organization. Quit whingeing - if you want KDE to win, get some cheerleading (or coding) in on your own side.
At least, not if I can do anything to alter it. And I can - my ongoing Fling project will make this kind of crap impossible; you can't regulate communications that you can't trace or tap.
Yes you are a technology-fearing luddite - and with good reason, you see how it will mess with your silly religious-type idea of a "plan". Face facts - there is no plan. People killed the tiger, people are bringing it back. "We can't turn back the clock" hmm? Bull. And thermodynamics has nothing to do with it; nobody's violating entropy by cloning some usedta-be-extinct beastie. As to putting them back without public friction - that is the problem of the recreators, and I expect they'll work out a solution.
IOW: Heck yes, we should "play god". Anyone who says otherwise is a silly superstionist.
"AltaVista's deal was different, and made feasable by relulatory prodding"
Putting it a lil bit more accurately: they didn't like BT's terms trading freely for line costs - so they went public with a huge vaporware in the hopes of getting our polls-obsessed govt to straitjacket BT via the telephone regulator (Yeah, they privatized the company and kept all the control. Govts, hmph). When everyone else - including BT - came up with me-too unmetered services, AV's plan floundered. Good tactical planning there by BT:-)
Forking the code base is duplication of effort, the code bases inevitable drift and speciate, and the developer community polarizes into per-split factions. This is all a nuisance and very undesirable - except where it is necessary. Which includes a developer sitting on the code or trying to fluff a source release in lieu of being able to recall it.
Am I the only one that likes this? It seems like the perfect language to implement what Miguel de icaza is talking about in another article today: the re-componentization of modern unix. As to all the fuss about COM - just make the GNU clone use Bonobo instead:-)
For a commercial business with no legally enforced monopoly, there is no means by which they can "exploit" people. It's good business for them to tke as high profits as people are prepared to pay - if they overreach the product's worth they merely create opportunities for competitors. And yes there are competitors. Mac is resurgent, and Linux is munching into their market from the server end downwards (take a look at Helix Gnome if you don't think the desktop will be next).
Because "the market" is made of uncoerced individuals freely choosing to trade or not, there simply isn't any way to turn trade into theft.
you said: "This is another example of the 'Trusted Client' problem There ain't no such puppy as a trusted client. There can't be."
That's exactly what the DMCA is for - to legislate everything into trusted clients. Okay so it may not actually stop anyone with a clue, but so long as it doesn't get onto the click-and-drool interface where Joe Average can work it, the monopolist types are happy.
Strikes me that if you drive into anything that collapses (or even significantly wobbles) your cava-bubble, you're going to plough into plain ordinary water at supersonic speed, and decelerate pretty sharpish. Even assuming the hull doesn't smash into confetti, the passengers will be salsa on the forward bulkhead.
What you're describing is called "competition". The porn store has run up against somebody or something else, that can do the same, better. There is no "right to stay in business" when faced with a superior competitor, but that's basically what this store and the RIAA, MPAA etc want: a government mandate to force you, at legal gunpoint, to do it the bad old way.
Slashdot Mirror
The Fling project already does something like this. Fling protocol is only at the "nice idea" stage yet, and is hosted above the IP level, but it could be used to tunnel IP.
Fling works on a pass-the-parcel principle like Mixmaster, where the message is bounced from one host to another, with each host not knowing if they are the final one in the bounce chain, or from whence the message originated.
Hmm, lemme think.
- XML
- extremely configurable UI based on XML
- cross platform
- framework for cross platform apps
Ahhhh, it's all coming back. Does anyone recall that nifty app called Mozilla?
...then Rasterman will have to go back to flipping burgers.
It sounds to me like this is yet another attempt to strongarm the internet into playing by "the mainstream"'s rules, by pushing back the hoi polloi who can't make it into some archaic conception of "respectable".
It's just another form of stealth censorship, and it will be just as ineffective as all the other attempts.
The old saying that the internet routes around censorship as a form of damage only has half the picture. The internet isn't vulnerable to this crap, because there is no internet - there are just people, and computers, and the technology to connect them together.
Best solution: ignore the silly buggers. This childish manipulation is too trivial to bother over.
Can someone please port the Thot framework and editor (as used by Amaya) to Gnome-canvas, DSSSL and XML Schemas? Because that is the best structured-document editor out there, but it's tied to the ugly, crashy Motif system and an oddball DTD/stylesheet language all of its very own.
How does Ogg Vorbis hold up against these?
At least somebody is managing to avoid the theft-en-masse of those who want to practise charity with coerced wealth.
All that profit they pocketed means more wealth for them and for any sane trader - and less for corporate welfare, skiving bums, congressional "pork", and wasteful socialist projects to buy a second TV for all teenage black lesbian single mothers in the inner cities.
Where the costs of making something are effectively zero, price tends to zero - because it is always possible to undercut competitors. (The point where the costs are not zero, and the point where the artist can get paid without needing a coercive monopoly, is the point at which they originally release the information.)
So information wants to be both libre and gratuit, once it is accessible.
I think the law of information freedom could be rephrased as "information is a superfluid" - it naturally flows outward to the limits of its bounds, passing through any chinks in the constraints placed on it. Note the implications for information monopolies - information flow can only be blocked by totally controlling all factors that perturb its constraints. In practise this means: only luddites or police states can keep I.P.
Yes, you know what he meant, beacuse he can't concieve of any third state between "you steal from me" and "I steal from you" - the idea of "we neither of us steal, we trade" just hasn't occurred to him.
Besides, technically, Socialism for Corporations is called "mercantilism".
The whole idea of (1)coercive taxes (2)intellectual property is to say that "some of what's yours is mine". Once you allow that, the door's open to a tug-o-war between pressure groups, as to how much of whose property isn't their own. The squeaky wheel gets YOUR grease.
('nuff said)
I'd rather earn half that, by honest free trade, than ten times as much as a law-backed parasite of an unwilling employer.
The man's entitled to cheerlead for his own team, and so's his organization. Quit whingeing - if you want KDE to win, get some cheerleading (or coding) in on your own side.
... you just got it. That's simply a classic example of regulations stifling the free choice of (volunteer) employees.
At least, not if I can do anything to alter it. And I can - my ongoing Fling project will make this kind of crap impossible; you can't regulate communications that you can't trace or tap.
Yes you are a technology-fearing luddite - and with good reason, you see how it will mess with your silly religious-type idea of a "plan". Face facts - there is no plan. People killed the tiger, people are bringing it back. "We can't turn back the clock" hmm? Bull. And thermodynamics has nothing to do with it; nobody's violating entropy by cloning some usedta-be-extinct beastie. As to putting them back without public friction - that is the problem of the recreators, and I expect they'll work out a solution.
IOW: Heck yes, we should "play god". Anyone who says otherwise is a silly superstionist.
"AltaVista's deal was different, and made feasable by relulatory prodding"
:-)
Putting it a lil bit more accurately: they didn't like BT's terms trading freely for line costs - so they went public with a huge vaporware in the hopes of getting our polls-obsessed govt to straitjacket BT via the telephone regulator (Yeah, they privatized the company and kept all the control. Govts, hmph). When everyone else - including BT - came up with me-too unmetered services, AV's plan floundered. Good tactical planning there by BT
Least, that's how it looks to me.
Forking the code base is duplication of effort, the code bases inevitable drift and speciate, and the developer community polarizes into per-split factions. This is all a nuisance and very undesirable - except where it is necessary. Which includes a developer sitting on the code or trying to fluff a source release in lieu of being able to recall it.
What's to stop people slurping it all up as GPL and dumping the MPL entirely?
Am I the only one that likes this? It seems like the perfect language to implement what Miguel de icaza is talking about in another article today: the re-componentization of modern unix. As to all the fuss about COM - just make the GNU clone use Bonobo instead :-)
For a commercial business with no legally enforced monopoly, there is no means by which they can "exploit" people. It's good business for them to tke as high profits as people are prepared to pay - if they overreach the product's worth they merely create opportunities for competitors. And yes there are competitors. Mac is resurgent, and Linux is munching into their market from the server end downwards (take a look at Helix Gnome if you don't think the desktop will be next).
Because "the market" is made of uncoerced individuals freely choosing to trade or not, there simply isn't any way to turn trade into theft.
you said: "This is another example of the 'Trusted Client' problem There ain't no such puppy as a trusted client. There can't be."
That's exactly what the DMCA is for - to legislate everything into trusted clients. Okay so it may not actually stop anyone with a clue, but so long as it doesn't get onto the click-and-drool interface where Joe Average can work it, the monopolist types are happy.
Don't these people realise how much of the benefits of Open Source they're giving up, by isolating their code?
Strikes me that if you drive into anything that collapses (or even significantly wobbles) your cava-bubble, you're going to plough into plain ordinary water at supersonic speed, and decelerate pretty sharpish. Even assuming the hull doesn't smash into confetti, the passengers will be salsa on the forward bulkhead.
What you're describing is called "competition". The porn store has run up against somebody or something else, that can do the same, better. There is no "right to stay in business" when faced with a superior competitor, but that's basically what this store and the RIAA, MPAA etc want: a government mandate to force you, at legal gunpoint, to do it the bad old way.