Webservices were going to rule the computing world. You'd download apps as you needed them from vendors, then they would automatically bill you for the rental, but only for the time spent using the actual product.
My understanding was that "web services" referred to the SOAP (XML)-based information services that first appeared in the early 2000's; they didn't provide an application, per se, just information with a standardised API and return format. So, for example, I wrote a simple Perl script that used SOAP to take music information from Amazon's database and store it in a file; another script wrote the information to my MP3s (could have done it automatically, but I needed to verify the information was correct).
The Java Applets, by contrast, were effectively over-the-web applications.
most of those loans get forgiven. If you aren't aware of that, you should do a bit more research.
Most? Can you provide some good references?
Politicians say stuff like that all the time then have a nasty tendency to forget about it when the spotlight has moved somewhere else. The perception remains, though...
some of the largest cities in the world right now were tiny fishing villages in Africa [you corrected this to China] just 30 years ago and it isn't from selling fish that they got to be so huge in one generation as to make NYC seem small. Any particular reason Zimbabwe can't do the same thing?
Yep!
It's because Zimbabwe has been systematically driven into the ground in well under five years by Robert Mugabe, and can't feed its own people now. Actually, they're being systematically starved.
But that's beside the point; I never said we should give money to Zimbabwe simply because they were in a mess. That was the whole point. Sheesh.....
Anyhow, that aside, China and most African countries aren't comparable. China wanted to turn into a capitalist society (or their leadership did), and western governments (in particular the US) believed that in doing so they would become less of a threat to the west (though they probably misjudged this in retrospect). So, unlike African countries who are subject to tariffs on their goods, and so on, China is basically given carte blanche to export as much as it likes.
No struggling African country is ever going to be a serious threat to the US, or as potentially strong an ally (if only because they're nowhere near as big). So they're never going to get "most favored nation" red-carpet treatment; but a level playing field might be a start.
Any particular reason why Zimbabwe, or anywhere else for that matter, should need money from the US to do anything at all?
Good question; Zimbabwe shouldn't be getting any direct aid at all, as the problem is man-made. As for some of the others; that's a complex question. I think it comes down to your philosophy; if you think that no aid should be given out with something in return, it depends on what you want.
Certainly, giving loans (not aid) to certain countries under the control of corrupt governments, with the knowledge that the money was likely to be funnelled into the pockets of government officials hasn't done much to make Africa part of the world economy in the past 50 years.
[the ISS is ] a technical corporate welfare program meant to keep defense contractors in business, really nothing more.
Wasn't it also seen as a useful way to keep Russian scientists, etc. occupied instead of roaming around unemployed, working on projects for less desirable nations?
OR...we could stop treating them like children, and open up markets. Like we're doing now.
The "free markets" are bullshit. The Americans and the EU both preach "free markets" and *require* these reforms in exchange for aid; but they don't do the same themselves, subsidising their own industries, and slapping tariffs on processed goods, so that only the raw materials get imported, and the real "added-value" work has to take place within the EU, etc.
You might say that those giving the money are entitled to dictate stuff in return. In some cases, this might be fair; I wouldn't give money to (e.g.) Zimbabwe if I thought it had any chance of ending up in Mugabe's pockets instead of those it was aimed at. But tying "aid" to reforms pretty much blurs whether it's aid or not.... especially when it's required to go straight back into the pockets of western companies charging grossly inflated rates for work. Oh, and those companies *just happen* to be best friends with the government giving the aid.
And let's not even get onto the fact that a *large* proportion of money that is portrayed as "aid" is in fact *loans* that have to be paid back.
Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point was that those that preach the "free market" don't practise this themselves. Free markets? Yeah, well let's stop being so damn hypocritical about that ourselves, then.
therein lies the issue. and it isn't just with NASA. All of our governmental goals are short term.
That's why I wasn't particularly impressed with the description of the next moon shot as "Apollo on steroids".
Apollo was technically absolutely f****** brilliant, and it's amazing that it's been done once. However, it was horrendously expensive, and crucially didn't provide a platform for a sustainable space programme at decent cost.
Justifiable for beating the Russians and getting the Americans to be the first men to land on the moon, perhaps.... to use the same one-shot technology again and again seems gratuitously wasteful, however. And that was Apollo's problem; they spent a lot of money and tons of effort getting to the moon, which was incredible- but once that had been done, they didn't have that much more to show for it.
The space shuttle was meant to do that; even though it didn't work out that way, it doesn't negate the fact the Apollo approach isn't going to build the Americans a sustainable programme.
However, I suspect the expression was intended to fire the public's imagination (with respect to those involved in the space shuttle programme, I grew up in the 1980s, and it just didn't fire my imagination that well).
Or perhaps, since the moon shot is being planned as a first-step and test for the Mars programme, it *will* have to be like Apollo, since getting to Mars is going to be at least as big a challenge as getting to the moon was back in the 1960s.
I can remember using Google long before September of 1998, because I was introduced to Google by a classmate who I have not seen since I left that school in the spring of 1998.
That rings a bell; I think Google was some experimental thing for a while. I assume 1998 was the official launch date.
Info here and here, possibly. However, it mentions that the old name was 'backrub'; was it called Google when you first used it?
I agree with some of what you say, although I'm always wary about people saying "this is for the benefit of the author, so it can't be wrong."
Things are usually more subtle than that; the author may have motives for keeping a book out-of-print (perhaps they're searching for a better publishing deal). Perhaps everyone having an 'unofficial' copy might discourage the book from going back into print? Perhaps they have other motives?..... Most won't, but I think it's somewhat presumptious to assume that we're entitled to copy stuff on this basis.
As I said, there have to be limits to the law; if nothing else, unlimited rights would stifle others' creativity; and what if people had become reliant upon info 'X', which was then withdrawn as a form of blackmail by the author?
And so on...
People who bought copies when it was in print might get value from its perceived uniqueness, but why is their right to uniqueness greater than my right to enjoyment?
It's not; unless they agreed something with the author, that's really a red herring.
Even if it's the author who wants to keep it to himself and not share it. How is it hurting him if it is shared? He's only lost this "uniqueness".
See previous post; perhaps he wants to increase its value by withholding it temporarily. OTOH, there are limits that the law should be expected to protect people to if people don't want to distribute their work.
Anyhow, privileges and "rights" are not as clearly-defined as some would like to believe...
The day Altavista died. It's amazing how fast and how hard Google crushed all the other search engines.
Didn't Yahoo eclipse Altavista long before Google became dominant?
I remember using Altavista when I first discovered the web 11 or so years ago, and it was (*very* relatively, given the penetration of the Internet back then) one of the most well-known "search engines". This seems ages ago when I think about it; people maintained simple *lists* of interesting websites for general use, and the web was small enough for this not to be an entirely risible or unworkable concept). I'm pretty sure I'd heard of Yahoo back then, even.
By 1998, when I was seriously back online again, Yahoo was already dominant. I used Yahoo, but switched to Google after getting one too many X-10 popunder ads.
So; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Yahoo crushed Altavista (or perhaps that Yahoo expanded and Altavista didn't, really).... and that Google crushed Yahoo; or rather dented them out of shape quite a bit when they knocked them off their pedestal.
But yeah... it did happen so fast. I mean, Google *started* in 1998... the web (and Yahoo) were already pretty established by that time.
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
If you don't want people "stealing" your physical property, then don't make it accessible to them.
The trees your table was made from grew by themselves so should they belong to you?
They were on your land? Did you make the land? Did the people you inherited/bought it from make the land or acquire it (indirectly) by standards that would hold up today?
Read on, I'm just raising these questions to make a point...
Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us.
Society generously gives you certain "rights" w.r.t. physical property because it's ultimately beneficial to everyone involved. When it comes to the crunch, all physical artifacts are simply the grabbing, or processing of existing stuff. So why the heck should they "belong" to you?
Well, physical property is more "animal" in nature (similar to territory); intellectual property more "abstract". That's why people are more comfortable with physical property "rights". Both involve work, however, so is this justification for an artificial distinction?
Of course, the laws governing the two will have to be different to reflect the practical nature of the work involved, and (moreso than with physical property), limits will have to be placed on it to avoid Disney-esque eternal copyright.
But I don't accept the principle that intellectual work/property shouldn't be subject to protections in the same way that physical work/property is.
the "uniqueness" is just selfishness.
So? You think all artists should starve and do everything out of the goodness of their hearts? Why shouldn't they be self-interested, let alone selfish?
It's their work. If you don't like their terms, don't buy it, but don't rip it off either.
A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost.
And the artist doesn't get paid.
It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.
Let's accept that as true. (I'm not even going to get into a debate over whether having been widely viewed affects something's artistic status, as that's really just an "Ahh.... but is it *art*?" endless argument).
It still affects the monetary value of that piece of *work* to the creator. Remember that not only is much art created for *commercial* purposes, not all intellectual property is "art" either.
And what would be the benefit of pwning a voyager probe?
Credibility amongst the Slashdot crowd. *cough*
Seriously, it was just an idea. But since you raise the point, I'm sure that someone out there can figure out what they want out of it, and it's naive to assume that every government is concerned about their reputation.
If I was designing a probe, I'd incorporate a reasonable level of protection against this kind of thing into it. Who the hell knows where we'll be in 20 years time?
I wonder from how many organizations their scientists would be kicked out for pulling a stunt like that
Yes, but if they lived under a repressive regime, they'd get to stay in the "You and your family don't get shipped off to the gulags" organization; an important one to be a member of.
Six it is.... which took me about fifteen seconds to check on Google.
According to wikipedia, it was launched in the 1980s or 1990s; I've a funny feeling the film must have said the "late 20th century", though I can't remember for sure, but we're certainly behind schedule. By the time we've launched Voyager 6 and got it back, Persis Baldgirl isn't going to worth getting taken over.
Seriously, a pretty good film; less "Star Trekky" than the others IMHO, which might be why some hardcore fans dislike it (I'm not that big a fan of the original series, personally).
I thought about something along those lines a while back. More specifically, with most space probes, what's stopping a malevolant third party from sending their own control transmissions to a probe, and making it do their bidding?
My guess is that they might include some precautions nowadays, but what of probes from a few years back?
Very interesting, thanks. I haven't read it fully yet, but doesn't that mean you have a contract with the UK supplier unless they made it clear otherwise (or you imported the PSU)?
The story does have a happy ending - I bought the supply thought Amazon originally, and so phoned them up. After a bit of reminding them of their duty under Sale of Goods act (basically a quality brand should last longer than eight months) they agreed to replace it.
That's what I thought in the first place; I'd be interested in finding out what the legal position was w.r.t. stuff like this, bearing in mind that the UK has had fairly good consumer protection for a long time, and it's now even stronger (w/ the new EU rules).
If you bought it in a shop, is it reasonable to expect to have to ship it halfway across Europe at your own expense, especially if this wasn't made clear on the box?
If you bought it mail order, is it reasonable to be expected to ship it outside the country of purchase?
Actually, it's been argued that the microcomputer/personal-computer is actually a scaled up circa 1971 calculator; the first microprocessors were designed for calculator use, and the first microcomputers were exploitations of these by hackers who wanted their own computers. They weren't designed by someone trying to scale down a mainframe, they evolved from someone trying to build a computer from a crude microprocessor.
But that's perhaps disingenuous; I think what he is referring to is the OS; and it has to be said that as they grew in power, personal computers took their cue more and more from powerful mainframe/minicomputer operating systems like Unix.
The problem is the idea of unrestricted freedom is a nonsense in any country with two or more residents.
Absolutely. I've had this discussion previously on Slashdot, where I pointed out that if you take 'freedom' to the extreme, you have a situation where everyone can do what they like. You can't restrict the consequences, because that would possibly imply restricting someone else's freedom to do what *they* like.
So, in essence, everyone is free to do what they like (e.g. break the law), and everyone else is free to do what they like to that person (e.g. lock them up for breaking the law).... which is the same situation in *every* human society out there. Everyone is "free" in this meaningless sense.
And the "fist" definition sounds *sooooooo* simple.... until you realise that it is where most of the conflict lies. Where can I put my nose? Where can you swing your fists? When is it not reasonable to stick my nose near your swinging fists?.... yadda yadda...
Do you feel it is giving, when we pay taxes to the government, when there are laws saying you can be put in jail for not doing so? Even if that money goes to benefit you and others indirectly?
We could get into a discussion over the subtle meanings and connotations of words. Counter-example:-
"I gave the man $3000 in exchange for his car"
But I'll accept that "giving" has charitable connotations. Change it to something more appropriate if you think it's misleading; that wasn't my intent.
Even if I was going to release both source and binary anyway, I would feel as if I were paying, rather than giving, if the license said I must do so.
As I said, I wasn't trying to portray it as charity. If you feel that way about it, you're probably right.
The GPL is a license that in essence says "this is my work; *if* you wish to *distribute* a modified version, you have to give those modifications back". If you don't like it, you don't have to agree to those conditions; modify another piece of software under a license you consider preferable, or write your own.
I consider those terms of trade. This is "my" software, this is what "I" want in exchange *if* you want to modify and distribute it. Regardless, people have the choice.
What if the Red Cross were to implement such a policy for donations? Require you to give all your personal information (source) along with a monetary donation (binary)?
That would be the right of the Red Cross. It would also be a damn stupid decision, and inappropriate to the situation; but then, I think your comparison stretches credibility in principle. It's certainly not credible in practice, because money/lifestyle don't operate in the same way as binary/source. The two situations are so different, I'm not sure what you want to add to your argument by comparing them.
IMHO, less people would donate. I certainly wasn't asked to sign any forms.
Well, duh.
The BSD license imposes no penalty for releasing a binary-only modification, while the GPL does. Therefore, the BSD license is more conducive to giving back code, because there are no penalties for not doing so. Not so for the GPL.
As I said, 'giving' might or might not imply something voluntary. Of course, no-one *forces* anyone to distribute modified GPL software, so that's voluntary; but it wasn't my intent to use the word to imply anything charitable anyway.
But let's stick to your definition.... you're essentially saying that the BSD license is better for giving simply because someone has the right to *refuse* whereas *if* you agree to the GPL you are required to distribute (not 'give') your changes?
Well... yeah.
As I said elsewhere, it's down to what you consider acceptable terms for distribution of *your* work. If you read elsewhere in this discussion, you'll see that I've already said that BSD is more 'free' (in terms of being able to do what the heck you like with it).
But neither are they preventing anyone from using the BSD licensed TCP/IP stack. One of the more popular arguments against the BSD license is that it's "a license to steal."
Yes, but that's not my argument against it.
You've already put words in my mouth on two occasions. Now you're trying to bring someone else's argument (which I don't endorse) into your discussion of what I said.
I've read discussion here along the lines of "Microsoft are evil!!!! They're stealing BSD code and not giving anything back". They're not stealing. They're simply doing what the BSD license lets them do, and if the authors of the code didn't like it, they wouldn't (or shouldn't) have released it under the BSD license.
I wouldn't use the word "stealing"; I *might* (in some cases) use the word exploitation; but that having been said, it's debatable if it's exploitation when someone knowingly releases code under such an unrestrictive license and someone doesn't "give back".
However, I would not (and never have) called it stealing.
But nothing has been stolen! I still have my copy safe and sound!
Absolutely, and I didn't say otherwise.
What it *is*, is (with the permission of the authors), a license to use free- possibly unpaid- work to build a proprietary product on, without necessarily putting any significant extra effort into it.
As I said, choice of the authors. If they don't mind their work being used in this way, fine. If they're relying on companies "giving back" and they don't..... well, it was their choice to license it that way.
No, but Apache is. It's hugely successful in comparison to Linux (or IIS). Yet it's under a BSD-style license. Microsoft hasn't stolen it, nobody has stolen it.
Stolen, stolen, stolen. Not my words, not my argument, and I'm not going to get into a discussion over something I never said.
You're right that Apache (under a BSD *style* license; sorry, I'm not 100% au fait with the differences) has been very successful, and this seems like a good case for a BSD-style license (as I already said, I'm not rabidly anti-BSD or pro-GPL).
Successful though it is, Apache is one product, and it seems that the GPL is more popular in general; at any rate, would commercial companies be less likely to contribute under the GPL? I don't think so; is Apache popular and well-supported because, or *in spite of* its license?
The issue with Space 1999 is that it clearly portrays humans with bad, hair-helmet do's. This is not a fascinating thing, its something that will have to be diverted, like a catastrophic asteroid.
You're too late; it's already six years in the past.
Ah, those late-1990s helmet haircuts. I get so nostalgic for them..... I also miss the moon.
Anyhow, list was garbage. Pick the first fifty (mainly American) sci-fi or fantasy series you can think of (or anything that features something vaguely electronic somewhere), throw the list up in the air, fix any obvious mistakes ("Star Trek not #1? Move it NOW!") and there you go.
Slashdot Mirror
Webservices were going to rule the computing world. You'd download apps as you needed them from vendors, then they would automatically bill you for the rental, but only for the time spent using the actual product.
My understanding was that "web services" referred to the SOAP (XML)-based information services that first appeared in the early 2000's; they didn't provide an application, per se, just information with a standardised API and return format. So, for example, I wrote a simple Perl script that used SOAP to take music information from Amazon's database and store it in a file; another script wrote the information to my MP3s (could have done it automatically, but I needed to verify the information was correct).
The Java Applets, by contrast, were effectively over-the-web applications.
Repeat after me... "There is nothing wrong with boobies... There is nothing wrong with boobies... There is nothing wrong with boobies...".
:-6
There is when they're on a guy
Anyway, four words; gay male / straight female.
most of those loans get forgiven. If you aren't aware of that, you should do a bit more research.
Most? Can you provide some good references?
Politicians say stuff like that all the time then have a nasty tendency to forget about it when the spotlight has moved somewhere else. The perception remains, though...
some of the largest cities in the world right now were tiny fishing villages in Africa [you corrected this to China] just 30 years ago and it isn't from selling fish that they got to be so huge in one generation as to make NYC seem small. Any particular reason Zimbabwe can't do the same thing?
Yep!
It's because Zimbabwe has been systematically driven into the ground in well under five years by Robert Mugabe, and can't feed its own people now. Actually, they're being systematically starved.
But that's beside the point; I never said we should give money to Zimbabwe simply because they were in a mess. That was the whole point. Sheesh.....
Anyhow, that aside, China and most African countries aren't comparable. China wanted to turn into a capitalist society (or their leadership did), and western governments (in particular the US) believed that in doing so they would become less of a threat to the west (though they probably misjudged this in retrospect). So, unlike African countries who are subject to tariffs on their goods, and so on, China is basically given carte blanche to export as much as it likes.
No struggling African country is ever going to be a serious threat to the US, or as potentially strong an ally (if only because they're nowhere near as big). So they're never going to get "most favored nation" red-carpet treatment; but a level playing field might be a start.
Any particular reason why Zimbabwe, or anywhere else for that matter, should need money from the US to do anything at all?
Good question; Zimbabwe shouldn't be getting any direct aid at all, as the problem is man-made. As for some of the others; that's a complex question. I think it comes down to your philosophy; if you think that no aid should be given out with something in return, it depends on what you want.
Certainly, giving loans (not aid) to certain countries under the control of corrupt governments, with the knowledge that the money was likely to be funnelled into the pockets of government officials hasn't done much to make Africa part of the world economy in the past 50 years.
[the ISS is ] a technical corporate welfare program meant to keep defense contractors in business, really nothing more.
Wasn't it also seen as a useful way to keep Russian scientists, etc. occupied instead of roaming around unemployed, working on projects for less desirable nations?
OR...we could stop treating them like children, and open up markets. Like we're doing now.
The "free markets" are bullshit. The Americans and the EU both preach "free markets" and *require* these reforms in exchange for aid; but they don't do the same themselves, subsidising their own industries, and slapping tariffs on processed goods, so that only the raw materials get imported, and the real "added-value" work has to take place within the EU, etc.
You might say that those giving the money are entitled to dictate stuff in return. In some cases, this might be fair; I wouldn't give money to (e.g.) Zimbabwe if I thought it had any chance of ending up in Mugabe's pockets instead of those it was aimed at. But tying "aid" to reforms pretty much blurs whether it's aid or not.... especially when it's required to go straight back into the pockets of western companies charging grossly inflated rates for work. Oh, and those companies *just happen* to be best friends with the government giving the aid.
And let's not even get onto the fact that a *large* proportion of money that is portrayed as "aid" is in fact *loans* that have to be paid back.
Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point was that those that preach the "free market" don't practise this themselves. Free markets? Yeah, well let's stop being so damn hypocritical about that ourselves, then.
therein lies the issue. and it isn't just with NASA. All of our governmental goals are short term.
That's why I wasn't particularly impressed with the description of the next moon shot as "Apollo on steroids".
Apollo was technically absolutely f****** brilliant, and it's amazing that it's been done once. However, it was horrendously expensive, and crucially didn't provide a platform for a sustainable space programme at decent cost.
Justifiable for beating the Russians and getting the Americans to be the first men to land on the moon, perhaps.... to use the same one-shot technology again and again seems gratuitously wasteful, however. And that was Apollo's problem; they spent a lot of money and tons of effort getting to the moon, which was incredible- but once that had been done, they didn't have that much more to show for it.
The space shuttle was meant to do that; even though it didn't work out that way, it doesn't negate the fact the Apollo approach isn't going to build the Americans a sustainable programme.
However, I suspect the expression was intended to fire the public's imagination (with respect to those involved in the space shuttle programme, I grew up in the 1980s, and it just didn't fire my imagination that well).
Or perhaps, since the moon shot is being planned as a first-step and test for the Mars programme, it *will* have to be like Apollo, since getting to Mars is going to be at least as big a challenge as getting to the moon was back in the 1960s.
> > Imagine if the Space ship One team had 250 billion...
> They would probably become just as inefficient as NASA.
1/2 billion on Spaceship One, 249 1/2 billion on whores and cocaine.
I can remember using Google long before September of 1998, because I was introduced to Google by a classmate who I have not seen since I left that school in the spring of 1998.
That rings a bell; I think Google was some experimental thing for a while. I assume 1998 was the official launch date.
Info here and here, possibly. However, it mentions that the old name was 'backrub'; was it called Google when you first used it?
I agree with some of what you say, although I'm always wary about people saying "this is for the benefit of the author, so it can't be wrong."
Things are usually more subtle than that; the author may have motives for keeping a book out-of-print (perhaps they're searching for a better publishing deal). Perhaps everyone having an 'unofficial' copy might discourage the book from going back into print? Perhaps they have other motives?..... Most won't, but I think it's somewhat presumptious to assume that we're entitled to copy stuff on this basis.
As I said, there have to be limits to the law; if nothing else, unlimited rights would stifle others' creativity; and what if people had become reliant upon info 'X', which was then withdrawn as a form of blackmail by the author?
And so on... People who bought copies when it was in print might get value from its perceived uniqueness, but why is their right to uniqueness greater than my right to enjoyment?
It's not; unless they agreed something with the author, that's really a red herring.
Even if it's the author who wants to keep it to himself and not share it. How is it hurting him if it is shared? He's only lost this "uniqueness".
See previous post; perhaps he wants to increase its value by withholding it temporarily. OTOH, there are limits that the law should be expected to protect people to if people don't want to distribute their work.
Anyhow, privileges and "rights" are not as clearly-defined as some would like to believe...
The day Altavista died. It's amazing how fast and how hard Google crushed all the other search engines.
Didn't Yahoo eclipse Altavista long before Google became dominant?
I remember using Altavista when I first discovered the web 11 or so years ago, and it was (*very* relatively, given the penetration of the Internet back then) one of the most well-known "search engines". This seems ages ago when I think about it; people maintained simple *lists* of interesting websites for general use, and the web was small enough for this not to be an entirely risible or unworkable concept). I'm pretty sure I'd heard of Yahoo back then, even.
By 1998, when I was seriously back online again, Yahoo was already dominant. I used Yahoo, but switched to Google after getting one too many X-10 popunder ads.
So; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Yahoo crushed Altavista (or perhaps that Yahoo expanded and Altavista didn't, really).... and that Google crushed Yahoo; or rather dented them out of shape quite a bit when they knocked them off their pedestal.
But yeah... it did happen so fast. I mean, Google *started* in 1998... the web (and Yahoo) were already pretty established by that time.
Exactly, and to keep it legitimate all the pornography I download is open source.
:)
Does this mean RMS/ESR/Linus Torvalds three-way action?
Thanks, but I'll stick to downloading my ripped-off copyrighted stuff
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
If you don't want people "stealing" your physical property, then don't make it accessible to them.
The trees your table was made from grew by themselves so should they belong to you?
They were on your land? Did you make the land? Did the people you inherited/bought it from make the land or acquire it (indirectly) by standards that would hold up today?
Read on, I'm just raising these questions to make a point...
Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us.
Society generously gives you certain "rights" w.r.t. physical property because it's ultimately beneficial to everyone involved. When it comes to the crunch, all physical artifacts are simply the grabbing, or processing of existing stuff. So why the heck should they "belong" to you?
Well, physical property is more "animal" in nature (similar to territory); intellectual property more "abstract". That's why people are more comfortable with physical property "rights". Both involve work, however, so is this justification for an artificial distinction?
Of course, the laws governing the two will have to be different to reflect the practical nature of the work involved, and (moreso than with physical property), limits will have to be placed on it to avoid Disney-esque eternal copyright.
But I don't accept the principle that intellectual work/property shouldn't be subject to protections in the same way that physical work/property is.
the "uniqueness" is just selfishness.
So? You think all artists should starve and do everything out of the goodness of their hearts? Why shouldn't they be self-interested, let alone selfish?
It's their work. If you don't like their terms, don't buy it, but don't rip it off either.
A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost.
And the artist doesn't get paid.
It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.
Let's accept that as true. (I'm not even going to get into a debate over whether having been widely viewed affects something's artistic status, as that's really just an "Ahh.... but is it *art*?" endless argument).
It still affects the monetary value of that piece of *work* to the creator. Remember that not only is much art created for *commercial* purposes, not all intellectual property is "art" either.
And what would be the benefit of pwning a voyager probe?
Credibility amongst the Slashdot crowd. *cough*
Seriously, it was just an idea. But since you raise the point, I'm sure that someone out there can figure out what they want out of it, and it's naive to assume that every government is concerned about their reputation.
If I was designing a probe, I'd incorporate a reasonable level of protection against this kind of thing into it. Who the hell knows where we'll be in 20 years time?
I wonder from how many organizations their scientists would be kicked out for pulling a stunt like that
Yes, but if they lived under a repressive regime, they'd get to stay in the "You and your family don't get shipped off to the gulags" organization; an important one to be a member of.
Yeah sure all we need is a deep space antenna and we will total own it. Oh yeah I don't have one of those.
Funny, perhaps. But insightful?!!
The fact that *you* don't have the resources doesn't alter the fact that many foreign governments probably do.
Six it is.... which took me about fifteen seconds to check on Google.
According to wikipedia, it was launched in the 1980s or 1990s; I've a funny feeling the film must have said the "late 20th century", though I can't remember for sure, but we're certainly behind schedule. By the time we've launched Voyager 6 and got it back, Persis Baldgirl isn't going to worth getting taken over.
Seriously, a pretty good film; less "Star Trekky" than the others IMHO, which might be why some hardcore fans dislike it (I'm not that big a fan of the original series, personally).
Let's /. the voyager!
I thought about something along those lines a while back. More specifically, with most space probes, what's stopping a malevolant third party from sending their own control transmissions to a probe, and making it do their bidding?
My guess is that they might include some precautions nowadays, but what of probes from a few years back?
Very interesting, thanks. I haven't read it fully yet, but doesn't that mean you have a contract with the UK supplier unless they made it clear otherwise (or you imported the PSU)?
And no, it wasn't the dust that killed it - it popped a cap
...in your ass?!
The story does have a happy ending - I bought the supply thought Amazon originally, and so phoned them up. After a bit of reminding them of their duty under Sale of Goods act (basically a quality brand should last longer than eight months) they agreed to replace it.
That's what I thought in the first place; I'd be interested in finding out what the legal position was w.r.t. stuff like this, bearing in mind that the UK has had fairly good consumer protection for a long time, and it's now even stronger (w/ the new EU rules).
If you bought it in a shop, is it reasonable to expect to have to ship it halfway across Europe at your own expense, especially if this wasn't made clear on the box?
If you bought it mail order, is it reasonable to be expected to ship it outside the country of purchase?
From the article:-
The PC is a scaled-down circa 1965 mainframe.
Actually, it's been argued that the microcomputer/personal-computer is actually a scaled up circa 1971 calculator; the first microprocessors were designed for calculator use, and the first microcomputers were exploitations of these by hackers who wanted their own computers. They weren't designed by someone trying to scale down a mainframe, they evolved from someone trying to build a computer from a crude microprocessor.
But that's perhaps disingenuous; I think what he is referring to is the OS; and it has to be said that as they grew in power, personal computers took their cue more and more from powerful mainframe/minicomputer operating systems like Unix.
The problem is the idea of unrestricted freedom is a nonsense in any country with two or more residents.
Absolutely. I've had this discussion previously on Slashdot, where I pointed out that if you take 'freedom' to the extreme, you have a situation where everyone can do what they like. You can't restrict the consequences, because that would possibly imply restricting someone else's freedom to do what *they* like.
So, in essence, everyone is free to do what they like (e.g. break the law), and everyone else is free to do what they like to that person (e.g. lock them up for breaking the law).... which is the same situation in *every* human society out there. Everyone is "free" in this meaningless sense.
And the "fist" definition sounds *sooooooo* simple.... until you realise that it is where most of the conflict lies. Where can I put my nose? Where can you swing your fists? When is it not reasonable to stick my nose near your swinging fists?.... yadda yadda...
George Bush doesn't care about iPod Nano owners
;) )
Is it cos they is black?
(The iPod Nanos, that is, although I suspect Kanye West probably thinks that white people should wait a few months before they start using them
Do you feel it is giving, when we pay taxes to the government, when there are laws saying you can be put in jail for not doing so? Even if that money goes to benefit you and others indirectly?
We could get into a discussion over the subtle meanings and connotations of words. Counter-example:-
"I gave the man $3000 in exchange for his car"
But I'll accept that "giving" has charitable connotations. Change it to something more appropriate if you think it's misleading; that wasn't my intent.
Even if I was going to release both source and binary anyway, I would feel as if I were paying, rather than giving, if the license said I must do so.
As I said, I wasn't trying to portray it as charity. If you feel that way about it, you're probably right.
The GPL is a license that in essence says "this is my work; *if* you wish to *distribute* a modified version, you have to give those modifications back". If you don't like it, you don't have to agree to those conditions; modify another piece of software under a license you consider preferable, or write your own.
I consider those terms of trade. This is "my" software, this is what "I" want in exchange *if* you want to modify and distribute it. Regardless, people have the choice.
What if the Red Cross were to implement such a policy for donations? Require you to give all your personal information (source) along with a monetary donation (binary)?
That would be the right of the Red Cross. It would also be a damn stupid decision, and inappropriate to the situation; but then, I think your comparison stretches credibility in principle. It's certainly not credible in practice, because money/lifestyle don't operate in the same way as binary/source. The two situations are so different, I'm not sure what you want to add to your argument by comparing them.
IMHO, less people would donate. I certainly wasn't asked to sign any forms.
Well, duh.
The BSD license imposes no penalty for releasing a binary-only modification, while the GPL does. Therefore, the BSD license is more conducive to giving back code, because there are no penalties for not doing so. Not so for the GPL.
As I said, 'giving' might or might not imply something voluntary. Of course, no-one *forces* anyone to distribute modified GPL software, so that's voluntary; but it wasn't my intent to use the word to imply anything charitable anyway.
But let's stick to your definition.... you're essentially saying that the BSD license is better for giving simply because someone has the right to *refuse* whereas *if* you agree to the GPL you are required to distribute (not 'give') your changes?
Well... yeah.
As I said elsewhere, it's down to what you consider acceptable terms for distribution of *your* work. If you read elsewhere in this discussion, you'll see that I've already said that BSD is more 'free' (in terms of being able to do what the heck you like with it).
But neither are they preventing anyone from using the BSD licensed TCP/IP stack. One of the more popular arguments against the BSD license is that it's "a license to steal."
Yes, but that's not my argument against it.
You've already put words in my mouth on two occasions. Now you're trying to bring someone else's argument (which I don't endorse) into your discussion of what I said.
I've read discussion here along the lines of "Microsoft are evil!!!! They're stealing BSD code and not giving anything back". They're not stealing. They're simply doing what the BSD license lets them do, and if the authors of the code didn't like it, they wouldn't (or shouldn't) have released it under the BSD license.
I wouldn't use the word "stealing"; I *might* (in some cases) use the word exploitation; but that having been said, it's debatable if it's exploitation when someone knowingly releases code under such an unrestrictive license and someone doesn't "give back".
However, I would not (and never have) called it stealing.
But nothing has been stolen! I still have my copy safe and sound!
Absolutely, and I didn't say otherwise.
What it *is*, is (with the permission of the authors), a license to use free- possibly unpaid- work to build a proprietary product on, without necessarily putting any significant extra effort into it.
As I said, choice of the authors. If they don't mind their work being used in this way, fine. If they're relying on companies "giving back" and they don't..... well, it was their choice to license it that way.
No, but Apache is. It's hugely successful in comparison to Linux (or IIS). Yet it's under a BSD-style license. Microsoft hasn't stolen it, nobody has stolen it.
Stolen, stolen, stolen. Not my words, not my argument, and I'm not going to get into a discussion over something I never said.
You're right that Apache (under a BSD *style* license; sorry, I'm not 100% au fait with the differences) has been very successful, and this seems like a good case for a BSD-style license (as I already said, I'm not rabidly anti-BSD or pro-GPL).
Successful though it is, Apache is one product, and it seems that the GPL is more popular in general; at any rate, would commercial companies be less likely to contribute under the GPL? I don't think so; is Apache popular and well-supported because, or *in spite of* its license?
The issue with Space 1999 is that it clearly portrays humans with bad, hair-helmet do's. This is not a fascinating thing, its something that will have to be diverted, like a catastrophic asteroid.
You're too late; it's already six years in the past.
Ah, those late-1990s helmet haircuts. I get so nostalgic for them..... I also miss the moon.
Anyhow, list was garbage. Pick the first fifty (mainly American) sci-fi or fantasy series you can think of (or anything that features something vaguely electronic somewhere), throw the list up in the air, fix any obvious mistakes ("Star Trek not #1? Move it NOW!") and there you go.