Actually, with the very large donation to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, he's probably doing just what you recommended (albeit indirectly). The Gates Foundation has significant focus on licensing technology for use in developing countries (including pharma and other "patentable" technologies). The Gates Foundation stands to benefit from 80% of the 85% of Buffet's fortune that will be donated to charity. It's a pretty good bet that some of that money will go to taking otherwise patentable technologies and making them more accessible to the less fortunate. It might not be released to the world freely but it will be probably given to those who couldn't possibly afford the so-called "fair license feee". Good thought, though. I hope more people start thinking this way.
You bet! The waiting lists are extremely long and they don't even both taking deposits at some dealerships. However, after stopping a man driving a ForTwo at Ikea Burlington, I asked him where he got his so very quickly. Apparently, the base white model with no accessory packages sells poorly and can be had at the list price without much hassle in Canada. Food for thought for anybody looking to buy one in Canada (and if you work in Toronto, as I do, it's the ease of parking that makes you want one of these things...)
Having recently engaged in a switch for my wife's computer from WinXP Pro to Max OS/X 10.3, I can certainly say that the largest issue was application support. We spent the cost of the hardware many times over in purchasing "Mac" versions of existing windows applications that we had licensed for her previous computers. Basically, I think that the hardware cost is negligible when viewed in the overall scheme of things and that makes the hardware platform LESS relevant. We switched half our computers macintosh for the user experience but maintained cheap/high-performance windows boxes for compatibility. The Macs play so nice with the Windows machines that we hardly notice that they are running different architectures on the hardware side. It's just a UI decision where Hardware is a very small element of the cost. While you need to pay extra for a premium OS on Intel/AMD/X86 platforms (read as XP-PRO v. XP-HOME), Apple loads up their hardware with a top-rate OS without much extra cost. Add-in better designed hardware and peripherals and basically the value proposition is based on getting applications that do what you need.
Therefore, if application support was there for an OS/X based core running on X86, I would probably switch (but still keep at least one Windows box... just in case).
Thanks for the support... It's appreciated. As a longtime user of various Wiki engines, I figured it was a no-brainer to have the administrator secure the core topics/pages to prevent people from completely screwing up the site (oh... wait, that's what happened...) As I write this, dozens of Wikis remain secured and safe from malfeasant Slashdot readers.
Because microsoft has released more "Secure" software that prevents people from tampering with your system (or in this case... their systems). Just another poster child for security being "top priority" at microsoft. It's like when Ford was promoting "Quality is Job #1".... you emphasize a weakness as a strength and hope people don't notice.
Nvidia has already announced Gelato which uses the GPU to render regularly CPU intensive frames for video production. the link is here and the film industry apparently already uses this.
I think that it requires the increase 2-way bus bandwidth that PCI-Express offers to be of any use but it's interesting nonetheless. I suspect that with PCI-Express MoBo's becoming more prevalent there will be a new market for arming PCs with non-function-specific (eg. not dedicated to graphic) co-processors that can assist with processing intensive tasks.
The key thing here is not that it's in force as of January 1st 2004 but that EVERY business is covered. There was phased implementation of the legislation since the legislation became law at least two years ago. Entities like health care, telecommunications services providers (like ISPs, mobile phone companies, etc), banks and many other inter-provincial and international entities have been governed by this legislation for some time. It's also aligned with the EU privacy directive (which the U.S.A. has had significant hassles complying with). It's interesting to note that many American companies operating in Canada complied with these laws without much fuss... however, they would lobby aggressively in the United States that these laws are unfair restrictions on their business activities (eg. profiling you and selling your information to marketers). That certainly smells fishy to me.
Just FYI, that's why I used the term "niche" market. It's not like these things are going to be revolutionary... not like peanut butter or pre-sliced bagels.
I think that replies have missed the point of my initial comment. The idea is that you shouldn't have to pay for developing (and then return the camera) EVERY time you want to use it in a hazardous situation. The concept is that you could use them MANY times (not just the once permitted) and retain contol over where you get the photos produced (because you're not limited to the "out of the box" options.
As for the assertion that it is "wasn't supposed to be hacked". That's like saying that you can't upgrade a computer that you've purchased. Nobody would argue that you couldn't ADD memory or upgrade a video card to add additional features not available out of the box. You're "upgrading" the camera from the out of the box state. Who decides what's "supposed to be hacked" and what isn't? You purchase a good and if you want to throw it out, that's okay, if you want to hack it, that's your right too.
The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.
Good point... not to say that the Canadian jurisprudence has not been perfect (in fact many notable instances DO exist). I was merely trying to emphasize that the paradigm for controlling speech makes much more sense. Specifically, everything is "speech" but enforces "reasonable" limits. That does not necessary devalue the expression by failing to recognize the expression as "speech". The US approach devalues the contribution of the expressor by deeming certain expression as being of a lower-quality than others. That's my primary beef.
Also, there have been significant re-works of the criminal code since 1992 regarding child porn and obscenity. Finally, once case, while important, does not necessarily reflect the majority of situations... how many times have books been removed from American bookstores (or never made it there in the first place) due to conservative judges/interpretations?
Also, the most recent (2002) ruling on child pornography in BC takes much more liberal views on such things.
I think it's fair to say we all like liberty and freedom... it's just a shame that some people (judges) tend to cater to their constituents (read: LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR) and not to some sort of objective norms. (BTW... did I mention that Canadian judges aren't elected).
Good note... I'm going to find the 1992 case and see how badky we screwed that one up.
This story is really frustrating. As a Canadian citizen that has seriously considered relocating to the states, I must say that this type of judgment is the reason why I stay put.
In Canada, the freedom of speech protections (well... freedoms in general) are so much greater than those in the United States. In fact, things like computer software, video games, pornography, EVERYTHING is given the dignity of being considered "expression" and protected. When something offends society, it's prohibition must pass a stringent test of being a reasonable prohibition and having that prohibition be the LEAST restrictive way to control the unwanted elements.
This decision undermines the work that many artists and developers do in producing video games. If you've ever looked at the credits on a video game, you'll notice that they read more like movie credits than anything else. The video-game medium is becoming increasingly artistic and games like Black and White, Max Payne, and GTA3 are rich with storylines and character development like a movie. To state that it's illegal to acquire games when underage... that's not itself bad. but to state that the videogames are not themselves speech... that's much more troubling. Therefore, I think that the judgment is a step back... Too bad... it's a rare privilege to be able to make good law and a shame so many are wasted.
I agree that this idea is really important and certainly the electronic licensing bit is important because as opposed to other technologies, this technology inherently GRANTS rights to users and does not limit their rights. (That's a good thing).
While "Automatic Copyright" presumption was imported to comply with WIPO/Berne Convention obligations, there are still many easy ways to waive the copyright in your work. First off, you can simply indicate on a file (document, audio, whatever) either in an embedded format or at a point in the distribution, that the work is in the public domain. Further, the presumption is important to protect those works that are not published or those works that never make it to the public eye. How many times have people written drafts of papers and only applied the copyright notice to the FINAL version? How many people place a copyright notice on correspondence? Is it ruin a work of art to apply a copyright notice? The presumption is an important step to protect interim work (that may be exploitable) as well as "release versions."
(As an aside, I think that the term of copyright in the United States is just plain looney... it's too long... by the time anybody can learn from the work created by examining it in detail, like disassembling software, the technology will not exist to read those files... think about why people emulate the C64 or the NES... within 15 years the technology is mostly dead and emulation is a temporary way to preserve the knowledge accumulated through the development on those platforms....plus it's still fun to play the original Super Mario Brothers...)
Waiving right (such as copyright) is easy... it's enforcing those rights that is hard. That's where I think Creative Commons will have some difficulty (but no more than existed prior to its inception). Enforcement of the "limited subset" of contractual rights embedded in a copyright work will be as difficult as enforcing the full set of copyright/moral rights protections. I'm realy eager to see how enforcement is proposed as that would potentially bridge the gap between over-the-top producers DRM schemes (which are of poor quality and hackable....SDMI anyone) and completely unrestricted digital media.
After reading the SFGATE.COM article about the Creative Commons, I think that I understand the concepts driving the initiative. Lessig suggests that there needs to be a controlled way to release items into the public domain so that the author retains certain residual rights such as (a) attribution to the work; (b) integrity of the work; (c) right to remain an anonymous author; etc.
These principles are basically the tenets of the Moral Rights regimes that are set out in the WIPO treaties. Most countries have adopted statutory protections of Author's/Creator's rights. These "moral rights" however, have not been fully included in the copyright legislation in the United States. Specifically, the USA has deferred to the commercial exploitation of copyrighted works as it believes that is the true objective of copyright. Lessig, proposes to give American creators something that they would already have if they lived in Vancouver or Toronto... moral rights.
That said, it would appear that Lessig has a very good chance of succeeding in the new venture because these regimes are thriving throughout the world. Lessig's "free" price tag is just about right given that non-American nationals don't pay for these additional rights.
Kudos to Lessig, et al. for trying to remedy a glaring deficiency in US Legislation through the formation of a private venture.
The crucial distinction between the hard-cover and the e-book versions of any work drive from the permitted copyright uses. Both works are subject to exceptions for fair use/fair dealing. Where the examples e-book pricing structure falls down is in that it provides less functionality at a higher price.
Most e-book readers are "locked" to a single device (Microsoft's Reader is trying to fix this... but let's be reasonable... it's crude at best). The hard-cover while physically limited to one form factor, can be both portable and stationary. You can have it on the shelf next to your computer but just as easily take it with you (like a portable). E-books tend to lack this versatility (generally).
Also, the traditional books generally don't restrict your ability to (a) copy text from them, (b) scribble or mark-up passages or (c) "loan" a book to another person, inter alia. The e-books typically restrict all of those activities to the extreme (with the exception of perhaps post-it style mark-ups).
These are only a few examples of where you have less "REAL" utility than traditional books when using e-books. Besides the fact that reading from a screen still is less a less than ideal experience, functional utility is one of the fundamental drivers of price from an economics point of view... same content @ less functionality = lower market price.
Wait and see... but I bet that e-books will take a long time to really catch on... and only when the price is closer to that of a soft-cover will people be willing to pony up the dough for a functionally deficient product.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, with the very large donation to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, he's probably doing just what you recommended (albeit indirectly). The Gates Foundation has significant focus on licensing technology for use in developing countries (including pharma and other "patentable" technologies). The Gates Foundation stands to benefit from 80% of the 85% of Buffet's fortune that will be donated to charity. It's a pretty good bet that some of that money will go to taking otherwise patentable technologies and making them more accessible to the less fortunate. It might not be released to the world freely but it will be probably given to those who couldn't possibly afford the so-called "fair license feee". Good thought, though. I hope more people start thinking this way.
You bet! The waiting lists are extremely long and they don't even both taking deposits at some dealerships. However, after stopping a man driving a ForTwo at Ikea Burlington, I asked him where he got his so very quickly. Apparently, the base white model with no accessory packages sells poorly and can be had at the list price without much hassle in Canada. Food for thought for anybody looking to buy one in Canada (and if you work in Toronto, as I do, it's the ease of parking that makes you want one of these things...)
Having recently engaged in a switch for my wife's computer from WinXP Pro to Max OS/X 10.3, I can certainly say that the largest issue was application support. We spent the cost of the hardware many times over in purchasing "Mac" versions of existing windows applications that we had licensed for her previous computers. Basically, I think that the hardware cost is negligible when viewed in the overall scheme of things and that makes the hardware platform LESS relevant. We switched half our computers macintosh for the user experience but maintained cheap/high-performance windows boxes for compatibility. The Macs play so nice with the Windows machines that we hardly notice that they are running different architectures on the hardware side. It's just a UI decision where Hardware is a very small element of the cost. While you need to pay extra for a premium OS on Intel/AMD/X86 platforms (read as XP-PRO v. XP-HOME), Apple loads up their hardware with a top-rate OS without much extra cost. Add-in better designed hardware and peripherals and basically the value proposition is based on getting applications that do what you need.
Therefore, if application support was there for an OS/X based core running on X86, I would probably switch (but still keep at least one Windows box... just in case).
Later.
Thanks for the support... It's appreciated. As a longtime user of various Wiki engines, I figured it was a no-brainer to have the administrator secure the core topics/pages to prevent people from completely screwing up the site (oh... wait, that's what happened...) As I write this, dozens of Wikis remain secured and safe from malfeasant Slashdot readers.
Because microsoft has released more "Secure" software that prevents people from tampering with your system (or in this case... their systems). Just another poster child for security being "top priority" at microsoft. It's like when Ford was promoting "Quality is Job #1" .... you emphasize a weakness as a strength and hope people don't notice.
Nvidia has already announced Gelato which uses the GPU to render regularly CPU intensive frames for video production. the link is here and the film industry apparently already uses this. I think that it requires the increase 2-way bus bandwidth that PCI-Express offers to be of any use but it's interesting nonetheless. I suspect that with PCI-Express MoBo's becoming more prevalent there will be a new market for arming PCs with non-function-specific (eg. not dedicated to graphic) co-processors that can assist with processing intensive tasks.
The key thing here is not that it's in force as of January 1st 2004 but that EVERY business is covered. There was phased implementation of the legislation since the legislation became law at least two years ago. Entities like health care, telecommunications services providers (like ISPs, mobile phone companies, etc), banks and many other inter-provincial and international entities have been governed by this legislation for some time. It's also aligned with the EU privacy directive (which the U.S.A. has had significant hassles complying with). It's interesting to note that many American companies operating in Canada complied with these laws without much fuss... however, they would lobby aggressively in the United States that these laws are unfair restrictions on their business activities (eg. profiling you and selling your information to marketers). That certainly smells fishy to me.
Just FYI, that's why I used the term "niche" market. It's not like these things are going to be revolutionary... not like peanut butter or pre-sliced bagels.
I think that replies have missed the point of my initial comment. The idea is that you shouldn't have to pay for developing (and then return the camera) EVERY time you want to use it in a hazardous situation. The concept is that you could use them MANY times (not just the once permitted) and retain contol over where you get the photos produced (because you're not limited to the "out of the box" options.
As for the assertion that it is "wasn't supposed to be hacked". That's like saying that you can't upgrade a computer that you've purchased. Nobody would argue that you couldn't ADD memory or upgrade a video card to add additional features not available out of the box. You're "upgrading" the camera from the out of the box state. Who decides what's "supposed to be hacked" and what isn't? You purchase a good and if you want to throw it out, that's okay, if you want to hack it, that's your right too.
The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.
Good point... not to say that the Canadian jurisprudence has not been perfect (in fact many notable instances DO exist). I was merely trying to emphasize that the paradigm for controlling speech makes much more sense. Specifically, everything is "speech" but enforces "reasonable" limits. That does not necessary devalue the expression by failing to recognize the expression as "speech". The US approach devalues the contribution of the expressor by deeming certain expression as being of a lower-quality than others. That's my primary beef.
Also, there have been significant re-works of the criminal code since 1992 regarding child porn and obscenity. Finally, once case, while important, does not necessarily reflect the majority of situations... how many times have books been removed from American bookstores (or never made it there in the first place) due to conservative judges/interpretations?
Also, the most recent (2002) ruling on child pornography in BC takes much more liberal views on such things.
I think it's fair to say we all like liberty and freedom... it's just a shame that some people (judges) tend to cater to their constituents (read: LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR) and not to some sort of objective norms. (BTW... did I mention that Canadian judges aren't elected).
Good note... I'm going to find the 1992 case and see how badky we screwed that one up.
Later.
This story is really frustrating. As a Canadian citizen that has seriously considered relocating to the states, I must say that this type of judgment is the reason why I stay put.
In Canada, the freedom of speech protections (well... freedoms in general) are so much greater than those in the United States. In fact, things like computer software, video games, pornography, EVERYTHING is given the dignity of being considered "expression" and protected. When something offends society, it's prohibition must pass a stringent test of being a reasonable prohibition and having that prohibition be the LEAST restrictive way to control the unwanted elements.
This decision undermines the work that many artists and developers do in producing video games. If you've ever looked at the credits on a video game, you'll notice that they read more like movie credits than anything else. The video-game medium is becoming increasingly artistic and games like Black and White, Max Payne, and GTA3 are rich with storylines and character development like a movie. To state that it's illegal to acquire games when underage... that's not itself bad. but to state that the videogames are not themselves speech... that's much more troubling. Therefore, I think that the judgment is a step back... Too bad... it's a rare privilege to be able to make good law and a shame so many are wasted.
Later.
I agree with the comments in the preceding note.
I agree that this idea is really important and certainly the electronic licensing bit is important because as opposed to other technologies, this technology inherently GRANTS rights to users and does not limit their rights. (That's a good thing).
While "Automatic Copyright" presumption was imported to comply with WIPO/Berne Convention obligations, there are still many easy ways to waive the copyright in your work. First off, you can simply indicate on a file (document, audio, whatever) either in an embedded format or at a point in the distribution, that the work is in the public domain. Further, the presumption is important to protect those works that are not published or those works that never make it to the public eye. How many times have people written drafts of papers and only applied the copyright notice to the FINAL version? How many people place a copyright notice on correspondence? Is it ruin a work of art to apply a copyright notice? The presumption is an important step to protect interim work (that may be exploitable) as well as "release versions."
(As an aside, I think that the term of copyright in the United States is just plain looney... it's too long... by the time anybody can learn from the work created by examining it in detail, like disassembling software, the technology will not exist to read those files... think about why people emulate the C64 or the NES... within 15 years the technology is mostly dead and emulation is a temporary way to preserve the knowledge accumulated through the development on those platforms....plus it's still fun to play the original Super Mario Brothers...)
Waiving right (such as copyright) is easy... it's enforcing those rights that is hard. That's where I think Creative Commons will have some difficulty (but no more than existed prior to its inception). Enforcement of the "limited subset" of contractual rights embedded in a copyright work will be as difficult as enforcing the full set of copyright/moral rights protections. I'm realy eager to see how enforcement is proposed as that would potentially bridge the gap between over-the-top producers DRM schemes (which are of poor quality and hackable....SDMI anyone) and completely unrestricted digital media.
Interesting times ahead...
:-)
After reading the SFGATE.COM article about the Creative Commons, I think that I understand the concepts driving the initiative. Lessig suggests that there needs to be a controlled way to release items into the public domain so that the author retains certain residual rights such as (a) attribution to the work; (b) integrity of the work; (c) right to remain an anonymous author; etc.
These principles are basically the tenets of the Moral Rights regimes that are set out in the WIPO treaties. Most countries have adopted statutory protections of Author's/Creator's rights. These "moral rights" however, have not been fully included in the copyright legislation in the United States. Specifically, the USA has deferred to the commercial exploitation of copyrighted works as it believes that is the true objective of copyright. Lessig, proposes to give American creators something that they would already have if they lived in Vancouver or Toronto... moral rights.
That said, it would appear that Lessig has a very good chance of succeeding in the new venture because these regimes are thriving throughout the world. Lessig's "free" price tag is just about right given that non-American nationals don't pay for these additional rights.
Kudos to Lessig, et al. for trying to remedy a glaring deficiency in US Legislation through the formation of a private venture.
The crucial distinction between the hard-cover and the e-book versions of any work drive from the permitted copyright uses. Both works are subject to exceptions for fair use/fair dealing. Where the examples e-book pricing structure falls down is in that it provides less functionality at a higher price.
Most e-book readers are "locked" to a single device (Microsoft's Reader is trying to fix this... but let's be reasonable... it's crude at best). The hard-cover while physically limited to one form factor, can be both portable and stationary. You can have it on the shelf next to your computer but just as easily take it with you (like a portable). E-books tend to lack this versatility (generally).
Also, the traditional books generally don't restrict your ability to (a) copy text from them, (b) scribble or mark-up passages or (c) "loan" a book to another person, inter alia. The e-books typically restrict all of those activities to the extreme (with the exception of perhaps post-it style mark-ups).
These are only a few examples of where you have less "REAL" utility than traditional books when using e-books. Besides the fact that reading from a screen still is less a less than ideal experience, functional utility is one of the fundamental drivers of price from an economics point of view... same content @ less functionality = lower market price.
Wait and see... but I bet that e-books will take a long time to really catch on... and only when the price is closer to that of a soft-cover will people be willing to pony up the dough for a functionally deficient product.
CRCates