I think it was Hume who said that (roughly) "a miracle is something such that when you tell someone about it they won't believe you".
[apologies for slight off-topic-ness]
This discussion rather reminds me of my experience of coming to know Jesus... I had a physical experience as real as any other (such as sitting here) but I suspect that many/most of you would doubt that I had a spiritual experience with God/Jesus/HolySpirit and put it down to some sort of "fake".
Now, does majority rule verity? That is, does the majority decide what is the truth? No. Everyone has a right to doubt (<controversy> even to doubt God, He gave us freewill after all </controversy>).
I'm with those who say the photography looks dodgy - the landscapes matching on photos at apparently different sites (no I haven't checked the NASA archives personally). I'd like to see the telescope photos - done by someone independant of NASA - of the landing sites.
A hoax is possible! But unlikely imho.
As far as the Russians tracking the LM, I don't think they could have. They could have tracked the earth based comms after receipt at radio telescopes but that would be the perfect site for a source injection. Tracking the actual module would have required detailed realtime information about the mission progression... I gather (from the little I know) that the Americans/allies had a hard enough job of keeping their recievers pointing in the right direction.
I don't think the company is in any worse a situation than releasing the executables. They still hold copyright on the source and (presumably) patents on any innovative steps in the process. It's only slightly harder to copy an executable (allowing for access codes) than to compile the source. They can still sue for copyright infringements (via international agreements, Berne Convention, through the World IP Organisation) and this includes unauthorised amendment of a work. There are 149 signatories to the Berne convention.
Also the points about excluding certain key features is a good idea. One that I would say was equivalent (in modern autos) to excluding exact engine management data. Even if source code was given for only 50% of a program it would reveal issues to do with quality of source.
I think that in fact we should have some new intellectual property right specifically for computer programs that would require certain disclosures which would enable quality to be assessed. It would also require information to be given to other software producers on compatibility issues... and I'm sure we could all add a few other features. Just a thought as yet... not a fully formed international treaty!
Slashdot Mirror
I think it was Hume who said that (roughly) "a miracle is something such that when you tell someone about it they won't believe you".
[apologies for slight off-topic-ness] This discussion rather reminds me of my experience of coming to know Jesus ... I had a physical experience as real as any other (such as sitting here) but I suspect that many/most of you would doubt that I had a spiritual experience with God/Jesus/HolySpirit and put it down to some sort of "fake".
Now, does majority rule verity? That is, does the majority decide what is the truth? No. Everyone has a right to doubt (<controversy> even to doubt God, He gave us freewill after all </controversy>).
I'm with those who say the photography looks dodgy - the landscapes matching on photos at apparently different sites (no I haven't checked the NASA archives personally). I'd like to see the telescope photos - done by someone independant of NASA - of the landing sites.
A hoax is possible! But unlikely imho.
As far as the Russians tracking the LM, I don't think they could have. They could have tracked the earth based comms after receipt at radio telescopes but that would be the perfect site for a source injection. Tracking the actual module would have required detailed realtime information about the mission progression ... I gather (from the little I know) that the Americans/allies had a hard enough job of keeping their recievers pointing in the right direction.
My ha'penneth (or my 2 cents, if you like!)
pbhj
I don't think the company is in any worse a situation than releasing the executables. They still hold copyright on the source and (presumably) patents on any innovative steps in the process. It's only slightly harder to copy an executable (allowing for access codes) than to compile the source. They can still sue for copyright infringements (via international agreements, Berne Convention, through the World IP Organisation) and this includes unauthorised amendment of a work. There are 149 signatories to the Berne convention. Also the points about excluding certain key features is a good idea. One that I would say was equivalent (in modern autos) to excluding exact engine management data. Even if source code was given for only 50% of a program it would reveal issues to do with quality of source. I think that in fact we should have some new intellectual property right specifically for computer programs that would require certain disclosures which would enable quality to be assessed. It would also require information to be given to other software producers on compatibility issues ... and I'm sure we could all add a few other features. Just a thought as yet ... not a fully formed international treaty!