Terrorist may or may not attack the Internet directly. But how vulnerable is the Internet to Government attacks? Can the Internet (i.e. the end-to-end principle) survive all laws passes as a result of Governments using terrorists as an excuse to control it?
So what if I don't use the same software license as you? What business could it possibly be of yours?
It's my business because the license rests on rights given to you by my government, and enforced by violence funded with my money. I may fault them for giving you a gun, but I'll still blame you for shooting me.
Could they "trivially" arrange for MP3 and DVD out of the box? Wouldn't that ba illegal according to the GPL? They would probably have to arrange a "covenant" just like the MS - Novell deal to stay legal. And that just the patented stuff, what about drivers? They sure as hell couldn't ship with nvidia or ati drivers preinstalled.
The free market really can't cope with that at all, because it makes "supply" in the economic sense infinite therefore price becomes zero, implying that something has no value. That's clearly rubbish, and quality creative works definitely have value to millions of people.
The your understanding of free markes is flawed. Price has nothing to do with value. The function of the free market is to have profit margin between costs, and what the market is prepared to pay: prise. By competition prise is driven towards costs until the market actors are forced to derive their profit from oppertunity rents by pressing their costs below their competition. Thus wealth is created by lowering the costs to deliver value to the market.
The practice of deriving profit from state enforced monopolies (patents and copyright f.ex.) is nothing but rent seeking.
It is true that some economists believe that the static inefficiency of state enforced monopolies is justifiable by arguments similar to yours. But it's not a holy truth, take a look at the critisism and see who you think has the better understanding.
When somebody can give me a sound, scalable, generic and implementable economic design for goods that cost money to build the first time but are free to copy from then on, I might start to protest against DRM, because I'd actually have an answer to the question of "If not DRM then what?". Until then I'll continue to argue the case for it, use it despite the inconvenience and who knows, maybe even implement it in future.
If the market can't handle this problem. Do you really need the kinds of goods that DRM "enables"? Do you really value this production higher than the production that is suppressed by these systems?
Is it possible that a the costs of producing this cultural and technological goods can be lower if the cost of reusing that which is allready produced is, as the maginal costs suggest, zero?
Is it possible that the costs are low enought to enable the commons-based peer production that Benkler suggests?
The problem is that GPL and GNU was created (and much work went into it) with the explicit purpose of promiting freedom. When GPL, GNU and Free Software is suddenly transformed into Open Source and Linux it is a huge disservice to those people who created GNU for the simple reason that most Linux based systems doesn't respect or promote the freedoms that GNU was created to promote.
Well, it could be general affection for GPL and FOSS that clouds your judgement too. I usually go for the GPL side of things, but latley I've been asking myself, would everything be a lot better if we just abolished IP-law alltogether?
If you search around you begin to find some good and sound economic arguments for that too.
Linus has said before that he'd probably choose a different licens if had was to choose one today.
GPL for him was never about freedom he only had one requirements, if people improved his code, they should give the improvements to hom.
What they do with the code, and how that affects other people was never an issue, as long as he can use their code (and apparently he don't want to use it with their hardware).
There is a real possibility to strike a hard blow to this nonsense now. The the elections for the europoean parliament is comming up.
This time one of the contenders is the http://www.pp-international.net/Pirate Party. Joining the fight now means you get to decide the agenda. Joining closer to the election atleasts means you've done something.
The current agenda is: Reform copyright to support free cluture. Abolish the patent system. Defend the right of privacy.
I really think that people who think intellectual property is a bad thing think that simply because they are out of touch. Or maybe they've just never had ideas/works that were original enough to be protected under IP laws and so they don't know what it means to have an idea stolen.
Oh, belive me. I have ideas, lots of them, very patentable. But unlike you I can't even imagine how the word "idea" and "stolen" could fit in the same sentence. The only way an idea can be "stolen" is if someone does an implementation faster, better och otherways superior to mine. How that constitutes stealing is beyond me...
There are a couple of tools to provide reverse-dependency checks for portage, unclepine is my favorite.
I don't think you should view the world file as a workaround, it's simply the list of installed packages (sans thier dependencies).
'emerge depclean' will remove all unneeded dependencies, so 'emerge unmerge && emerge depclean' will do what you want. However portage is currently broken in that it will treat all but the latest version av an installed packages as unneeded so you might want to run a 'emerge world' or something like that afterwards.
Regarding useflags and dependencies, don't just emerge stuff blindly and that shouldn't be a problem.
Why not have a pgp processor storing a private-key in a non readable register? Put the processor in a USB device and have some biometrics verification on the device.
I had a ti4200 that broke, wo I bought an mx440 (fanless) while shiping the other card for replacment.
Well I havent switched back yet. I can play ut2004 without a problem with quite enjoyable settings. This card costed me $50 and it's the best investment I've made for this computer.
Another tweak I can recommend is replacing the chassis door with a fanless door.
It seems to me that a HUGE market to conquer would be the LAN-gamers.
Imaine a device, tailored to solve all your LAN-gaming whoes.
To list a few:
Moving a big heavy box around. Moving a big heavy monitor around. Getting all drivers to work. Getting bullied for having the slowest cpu/gpu/ram/rat whatever. Trying to convince your friends that it can be fun playing a game that actually runs on Linux too! Makeing shure everyone has the right patches, crackz and stuff.
What I see before me is a compact, silent box that support two gamers with headsets or some laptop lookalike as interface. Theese boxes can be clustred to support more gamers. And the whole cluster can be connected to the internet for online gaming. VoIP is a must.
If I hear or see or in any other way is able recieve information for processing in thought it is also within my power to reproduce this information for someone else to digest. Ex. I hear a fun joke at job. It is within my power to retell the same joke to a friend when I get home. I argue that this power is a god given right and should be protected by the state. In fact the only way to take that right from me is to dieable my ability to receive or reproduce information. Which in efect would diable my ability to be human.
I also belive that the representation of the information has nothing to do with my right to reproduce the information.
I refuce to accept that you can ever sell the right to reproduce information. As that right should be mine to begin with. If you don't want me to reproduce information, don't give it to me.
I am, however, prepared to pay for the representation.
I managed to truly not belive in anything for a period. An experience I do not recommend, I spent the better part of a year in a semi-pychotic state.
In questioning everything you find that the all knowlege is based on some basic axioms like I exist and the world around me will have parameters and laws that stays the same between any two given moments or my memories of what seems to be the past and of which I base my experiences and understaning of the world is related to now and the future.
Sience however has come a long way to prove that those axioms are just not true... Einstein seems to imply that time is just an illusion,
How would you prove what parts of your experience of the world is actual parts of the world and which are just childs of your imagination?
Make digital signatures, and publickey encryption mandatory!
1. Not all mass-mailings are spam. Will your solution break high-volume mailing lists?
The concept is flawed, change to a pull protocoll instead of push.
2. Not all computer generated mails are spam. Will your solution break order status updates from web businesses? What happens if the business does not use the same domain for emailing? support@customers.example.com instead of store.example.com?
Will work, BETTER! Higher security.
3. Speaking of which, will your solution break messages sent from computers without an external email server? What happens if the cronjob on gateway.example.com wants to send bob@example.com an email?
Will work, BETTER! Higher security.
4. Spamming is worldwide. Will your solution include a spammer in, say, South Africa?
It will include the spammers, not sure about the legit mails though, exporting restrictions?
5. A spammer can use more then one machine in order to send email. Does your solution still work if the spammer is controlling 10 machines? 100 machines? 1000 machines?
A spammer could generate a new keypair for each mail, and spam the keyservers... could this be prevented?
6. Inversely, will your solution bog down my cellphone's anemic processor when I check my mail? Or will it cause my ISP to purchase faster hardware and pass the price on to me?
As much as the spam?
7. Finally, if I forge the address someone_i_hate@example.com on all my spam, will your solution bury their server in spam or not?
If someone_i_hate keep all his official keys on example.com: no.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some links for the interested:
n st.htm
h p/Main_Page
0 07/computer-2007-article.html
Music and books
http://questioncopyright.com/
Patents
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/agai
Network economy
http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.p
Collection p2p politics
http://www.p2pfoundation.net/
Software
http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2
IP economics
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/
Terrorist may or may not attack the Internet directly. But how vulnerable is the Internet to Government attacks? Can the Internet (i.e. the end-to-end principle) survive all laws passes as a result of Governments using terrorists as an excuse to control it?
Maybe Kevin Carsons "A Subjective Recasting of the Labor Theory of Value" would make it better?
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
You know... It could be that they just hate being raped by America...
So what if I don't use the same software license as you? What business could it possibly be of yours?
It's my business because the license rests on rights given to you by my government, and enforced by violence funded with my money. I may fault them for giving you a gun, but I'll still blame you for shooting me.
Could they "trivially" arrange for MP3 and DVD out of the box? Wouldn't that ba illegal according to the GPL? They would probably have to arrange a "covenant" just like the MS - Novell deal to stay legal. And that just the patented stuff, what about drivers? They sure as hell couldn't ship with nvidia or ati drivers preinstalled.
Wouldn't USR (= Unix System Resources) be an acronym?
The your understanding of free markes is flawed. Price has nothing to do with value. The function of the free market is to have profit margin between costs, and what the market is prepared to pay: prise. By competition prise is driven towards costs until the market actors are forced to derive their profit from oppertunity rents by pressing their costs below their competition. Thus wealth is created by lowering the costs to deliver value to the market.
The practice of deriving profit from state enforced monopolies (patents and copyright f.ex.) is nothing but rent seeking.
It is true that some economists believe that the static inefficiency of state enforced monopolies is justifiable by arguments similar to yours. But it's not a holy truth, take a look at the critisism and see who you think has the better understanding.
http://www.againstmonopoly.org/k s n st.htm
http://questioncopyright.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Networ
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/agai
When somebody can give me a sound, scalable, generic and implementable economic design for goods that cost money to build the first time but are free to copy from then on, I might start to protest against DRM, because I'd actually have an answer to the question of "If not DRM then what?". Until then I'll continue to argue the case for it, use it despite the inconvenience and who knows, maybe even implement it in future.
If the market can't handle this problem. Do you really need the kinds of goods that DRM "enables"? Do you really value this production higher than the production that is suppressed by these systems?
Is it possible that a the costs of producing this cultural and technological goods can be lower if the cost of reusing that which is allready produced is, as the maginal costs suggest, zero?
Is it possible that the costs are low enought to enable the commons-based peer production that Benkler suggests?
But if you really must have a system. What do you think of the street performer protocol?
5. Correcting misinformation and filling out some blanks as thanks for 1-3
The problem is that GPL and GNU was created (and much work went into it) with the explicit purpose of promiting freedom. When GPL, GNU and Free Software is suddenly transformed into Open Source and Linux it is a huge disservice to those people who created GNU for the simple reason that most Linux based systems doesn't respect or promote the freedoms that GNU was created to promote.
Net Neutrality is a techincal problem, and the solution will consist of
* Anonymous communication
* Encrypted datara transfers
* Mesh networks
Simply put, just bypass the ISP.
patents which force ATI and NVidia to go closed-source.
Yeah, because you can't go around revealing patents, they're supposed to be secret...
Well, it could be general affection for GPL and FOSS that clouds your judgement too. I usually go for the GPL side of things, but latley I've been asking myself, would everything be a lot better if we just abolished IP-law alltogether?
If you search around you begin to find some good and sound economic arguments for that too.
Linus has said before that he'd probably choose a different licens if had was to choose one today.
GPL for him was never about freedom he only had one requirements, if people improved his code, they should give the improvements to hom.
What they do with the code, and how that affects other people was never an issue, as long as he can use their code (and apparently he don't want to use it with their hardware).
There is a real possibility to strike a hard blow to this nonsense now. The the elections for the europoean parliament is comming up.
This time one of the contenders is the http://www.pp-international.net/Pirate Party. Joining the fight now means you get to decide the agenda. Joining closer to the election atleasts means you've done something.
The current agenda is:
Reform copyright to support free cluture.
Abolish the patent system.
Defend the right of privacy.
I really think that people who think intellectual property is a bad thing think that simply because they are out of touch. Or maybe they've just never had ideas/works that were original enough to be protected under IP laws and so they don't know what it means to have an idea stolen.
Oh, belive me. I have ideas, lots of them, very patentable. But unlike you I can't even imagine how the word "idea" and "stolen" could fit in the same sentence. The only way an idea can be "stolen" is if someone does an implementation faster, better och otherways superior to mine. How that constitutes stealing is beyond me...
There are a couple of tools to provide reverse-dependency checks for portage, unclepine is my favorite.
/etc/portage/package.use
I don't think you should view the world file as a workaround, it's simply the list of installed packages (sans thier dependencies).
'emerge depclean' will remove all unneeded dependencies, so 'emerge unmerge && emerge depclean' will do what you want. However portage is currently broken in that it will treat all but the latest version av an installed packages as unneeded so you might want to run a 'emerge world' or something like that afterwards.
Regarding useflags and dependencies, don't just emerge stuff blindly and that shouldn't be a problem.
i.e.
emege -av
euse -D/E
echo >>
emerge -av
granted, the tools can be improved, but it isn't exactly impossible or even hard to manage a gentoo system after ones whishes.
Last I tried ports I ran into some serious redundant recursions from the make system, a total performance killer, so I stayed with Gentoo.
I do agree, though, that the build configuration should be in the ebuild and not in make.conf. Global CFLAGS is just braindead, period.
To create binary packages either use -b or -B with portage or install one of the tools to create packages from allreadty installed files.
You could take another look at portage. With proper usage it could provied what you desire.
Why not have a pgp processor storing a private-key in a non readable register?
Put the processor in a USB device and have some biometrics verification on the device.
A word has a meaning in the context of the communication and the experience it triggers in the receiving end. And only then.
I herby declare "virii" to mean computer viruses.
I had a ti4200 that broke, wo I bought an mx440 (fanless) while shiping the other card for replacment.
Well I havent switched back yet. I can play ut2004 without a problem with quite enjoyable settings. This card costed me $50 and it's the best investment I've made for this computer.
Another tweak I can recommend is replacing the chassis door with a fanless door.
Fanless rocks! =)
It seems to me that a HUGE market to conquer would be the LAN-gamers.
Imaine a device, tailored to solve all your LAN-gaming whoes.
To list a few:
Moving a big heavy box around.
Moving a big heavy monitor around.
Getting all drivers to work.
Getting bullied for having the slowest cpu/gpu/ram/rat whatever.
Trying to convince your friends that it can be fun playing a game that actually runs on Linux too!
Makeing shure everyone has the right patches, crackz and stuff.
What I see before me is a compact, silent box that support two gamers with headsets or some laptop lookalike as interface.
Theese boxes can be clustred to support more gamers. And the whole cluster can be connected to the internet for online gaming.
VoIP is a must.
If I hear or see or in any other way is able recieve information for processing in thought it is also within my power to reproduce this information for someone else to digest.
Ex. I hear a fun joke at job. It is within my power to retell the same joke to a friend when I get home.
I argue that this power is a god given right and should be protected by the state. In fact the only way to take that right from me is to dieable my ability to receive or reproduce information. Which in efect would diable my ability to be human.
I also belive that the representation of the information has nothing to do with my right to reproduce the information.
I refuce to accept that you can ever sell the right to reproduce information. As that right should be mine to begin with. If you don't want me to reproduce information, don't give it to me.
I am, however, prepared to pay for the representation.
Well, in theory, you could pay Linus to to license the parts of linux that he has copyright on for you.
In practise he will not do it, but still.
It all comes down to copyright, a right you keep even if you license code under GPL.
I managed to truly not belive in anything for a period. An experience I do not recommend, I spent the better part of a year in a semi-pychotic state.
In questioning everything you find that the all knowlege is based on some basic axioms like I exist and the world around me will have parameters and laws that stays the same between any two given moments or my memories of what seems to be the past and of which I base my experiences and understaning of the world is related to now and the future.
Sience however has come a long way to prove that those axioms are just not true...
Einstein seems to imply that time is just an illusion,
How would you prove what parts of your experience of the world is actual parts of the world and which are just childs of your imagination?
The concept is flawed, change to a pull protocoll instead of push.
Will work, BETTER! Higher security.
Will work, BETTER! Higher security.
It will include the spammers, not sure about the legit mails though, exporting restrictions?
A spammer could generate a new keypair for each mail, and spam the keyservers... could this be prevented?
As much as the spam?
If someone_i_hate keep all his official keys on example.com: no.