Eventhough I understand the sentiment, your post (stating Bernie is actually part of the FIA) shows you have absolutely no understanding of the roles and forces that are involved in F1 and especially rulemaking.
Having been involved in the process a few times (in a more or less consulting role), I can tell you it's not that simple, the teams play a major part in things, and seem to be the force that obstructs some real innovation (yes all teams including the noisy Paul Stoddard of Minardi back then).
F1 is Sick, I totally agree, but things are much more complicated than they seem, and the picture of Bernie (with or without Max) being solely the bad guys is definately not acurate...
Nope, I am assuming I am offered a product with certain attributes (I can play it on a certain way) for a certain price. If I feel that price is value for money, I'm happy. If the copyright expires at some point in time is a completely different matter, why would that make me unhappy with the deal which was value for money in the first place...
Apparently you are assuming that buying a copyrighted work means you alwais buy certain rights, while DRM introduces a different way of offering content, which you may or may not like, but then again noone is forcing you to buy the copyrighted work in the first place.
I still don't see why a copyright owner could not release his/her contant in such a way it will only play in a certain manner (if this is technically feasible is a seperate matter).
You may not like how it is sold to you, but you are not forced to buy it. If the way it is sold offers you an alternative way of using it (like you CD or Toaster) that is fine.
If the copyright holder has a way of limiting the usage, well then it is up to the buyer to see if it is an acceptable deal.
The owner actually has more choice than if it is released, if a copyright owner does not like releasing on CD, then it is totally up to the copyright owner.
It is alwais funny to see people "explain" this issue while there is nothing to explain, if, how and when content is released is a choice of the copyright owner. If the owner of the copyright wants to include DRM that is up to him/her. The buyer can decide if he wants to buy it.
Your main point is that this has nothing to do with copyright law, which in priciple you are right, I don't disagree.
But then again, it is the owner of the copyright that can chose the manner in which copyrighted material is released (or do I get this wring and is a copyright owner forced to release in a certain manner?).
Apart from that I can't seem to find in my posts anything about this being a copyright issue. A copyright owner has (and IMHO should have) the right to release his/her content in any way he/she choses, even if this means keeping control over the content's use, since the user has the freedom to buy the content or not, it's all just a matter of choice.
As usual the comparison with a toaster/car or any other item is made... (the question is if this is a valid one, but IMHO a different dicussion).
If a producer of a piece of equipment and wants to keep the internals a secret he/she can do this if technically possible, there is nothing preventing the producer from attempting this. I actually have worked with pieces of (medical, military, manufactoring, measurement) equipment that actually were "welded shut" in some way (as in the much used car analogy). It does happen, it's not strange.
I don't see the real issue here, if you don't like the way someone distributes his/her content, just do not buy it. If a copyright holder manages to distribute his/her work in such a manner that there are restrictions on how it is used than this is the copright holder's freedom. Your freedom at that point is if you want to buy it or not...
What bothers me about the discussion is that someone who produces something apparently does not have the freedom of choice when it comes to releasing the product.
I agree completely, the artist (or any other copyright owner for that matter). Has the freedom to release his/her content in anyway he/she wants to. You have a choice of going along with it. Just like a coder has the right to release code using GPL and someone else does not have to use it because of that licence.
You pay a subscription to listen to music a limited number of times, perfectly reasonable just like subscription radio. Maybe you feel it's too expensive, take your money somewhere else then...
Same goes for the software, it's offered, and nobody is forcing you to use it, in other words, it's not broken, just not for you.
I agree, Actually quite funny, that all they asked him not to do was things they would ahve asked him if he used any other way of distribution. And they did not ask anything unreasonable.
Encapsulation is not the answer, that will just add more code, and therefor it will have more bugs (encapsulation needs an interface etc too).
I think a microkernel will indeed work better, be more reliable because it allows a limited group of people understand all relevant code of one component.
What you see happening in Linux is exactly Tanenbaum's point for a microkernel. But then again the man is often misunderstood and misquoted.
Looking at the european trading scene for example. These guys don't even tell their software vendors how exactly they use their products. That is after all kinds of non disclosure contracts have been signed...
So I do not see this happen, very little companies in this branche will see any tool (software, procedure or whatever) as being non essential to having their own edge.
Hehehe, I do recall a newyear's eve when an arch with a sense of humor set C3PO to aggressive. Didn't last long, fun tho, having him attack players only to run away scared...
(Comming to think of it quite a few Jedi and arches were playing little pranks that new-year's eve, that was a good party, not as good as some of the Kremlin parties, but pretty good)...
Hmm, you state: "I'm puzzled at the attitude the submitter apparently has, in that he seems to be describing environmentalists, and pro-nuke-power people, as two separate groups."
For a long time this was actually quite acurate. At least here in europe all environmental organizations were anti nuke. Nukes were bad, nuke had to be banned, nukes were evil.
Anyone in an environmentalist organiszation as far as I have seen would be persona non grata if they said nuclear energy would be a workable alternative (and yes I ahve been around those organizations but got fed up quickly with the lack of realism, but this may be a regional things).
On the other hand, you will normally find that the speak you see as useless is actually just badly used language. It actually does not mean anything.
(By the way, I've heard that type of non-language in many languages, English, German, Swedish, French, Dutch). That type of non-language is not exclusive to C-speak, I even heard some (mostly less competent) techs do this.
Anyway I know what you mean, but I do not see that as C-Speak, just as badly used language that is something you see more and more everywhere.
Of a system architect actually is being able to speak both languages and do the translation. At least that's what it meant for me. Or even I got the position because I was able to translate.
if you really cannot cope with the C-Speak, maybe you don't want to climb the coorperate ladder, maybe the "Peter priciple" applies to you (it's a book, look it up, amusing and the guy has a point).
I have to agree, most techs don't have the mindset of a business strategist. These different people just speak a different language, just like Techs and finance people speak a different language. All these languages serve their own purpose. Keep in mind that whenever a senior manager talks to techs he wonders about why these techs alwais have to talk techspeak:-) If you can't deal with the language barrier, I guess you're in the wrong place, I speak both and don't see the differences as a problem.
Acually I think the negative comments on C-Speak shows that people don't understand it and judge it from some misplaced kind of technical elitism (but hey I have been wrong before).
I think there is something to say for both points of view. In some ways the "free labour" sounds tempting, on the other hand having a closed shop with "your own" developers can be much more predictable (mark the can be != is;-) ). And in that way it is harder to profit from your investment.
And of course there are branches (like where I'm in) where things are mostly secret and the actual cost of internal development is lower than the cost of leaking information (which could just be a way of doing things).
I think in the end it mostly depends on the type of business you're in.
I once had a standards seminar where soemone made the interresing remark that open standards only matter to companies that are behind in marketshare. Once a company is dominant they want closed standards.
Of course "open source" can hardly be defined as a company.
Slashdot Mirror
Eventhough studies like these can be interresting...
I like van Gogh, the article is somewhat interresting, but I enjoy the paintings without the mathematical analysis better.
Eventhough I understand the sentiment, your post (stating Bernie is actually part of the FIA) shows you have absolutely no understanding of the roles and forces that are involved in F1 and especially rulemaking.
Having been involved in the process a few times (in a more or less consulting role), I can tell you it's not that simple, the teams play a major part in things, and seem to be the force that obstructs some real innovation (yes all teams including the noisy Paul Stoddard of Minardi back then).
F1 is Sick, I totally agree, but things are much more complicated than they seem, and the picture of Bernie (with or without Max) being solely the bad guys is definately not acurate...
Nope, I am assuming I am offered a product with certain attributes (I can play it on a certain way) for a certain price. If I feel that price is value for money, I'm happy. If the copyright expires at some point in time is a completely different matter, why would that make me unhappy with the deal which was value for money in the first place...
Apparently you are assuming that buying a copyrighted work means you alwais buy certain rights, while DRM introduces a different way of offering content, which you may or may not like, but then again noone is forcing you to buy the copyrighted work in the first place.
I still don't see why a copyright owner could not release his/her contant in such a way it will only play in a certain manner (if this is technically feasible is a seperate matter).
You may not like how it is sold to you, but you are not forced to buy it. If the way it is sold offers you an alternative way of using it (like you CD or Toaster) that is fine.
If the copyright holder has a way of limiting the usage, well then it is up to the buyer to see if it is an acceptable deal.
The owner actually has more choice than if it is released, if a copyright owner does not like releasing on CD, then it is totally up to the copyright owner.
It is alwais funny to see people "explain" this issue while there is nothing to explain, if, how and when content is released is a choice of the copyright owner. If the owner of the copyright wants to include DRM that is up to him/her. The buyer can decide if he wants to buy it.
Let me get this sraight...
Your main point is that this has nothing to do with copyright law, which in priciple you are right, I don't disagree.
But then again, it is the owner of the copyright that can chose the manner in which copyrighted material is released (or do I get this wring and is a copyright owner forced to release in a certain manner?).
Apart from that I can't seem to find in my posts anything about this being a copyright issue. A copyright owner has (and IMHO should have) the right to release his/her content in any way he/she choses, even if this means keeping control over the content's use, since the user has the freedom to buy the content or not, it's all just a matter of choice.
As usual the comparison with a toaster/car or any other item is made... (the question is if this is a valid one, but IMHO a different dicussion).
If a producer of a piece of equipment and wants to keep the internals a secret he/she can do this if technically possible, there is nothing preventing the producer from attempting this. I actually have worked with pieces of (medical, military, manufactoring, measurement) equipment that actually were "welded shut" in some way (as in the much used car analogy). It does happen, it's not strange.
I don't see the real issue here, if you don't like the way someone distributes his/her content, just do not buy it. If a copyright holder manages to distribute his/her work in such a manner that there are restrictions on how it is used than this is the copright holder's freedom. Your freedom at that point is if you want to buy it or not...
What bothers me about the discussion is that someone who produces something apparently does not have the freedom of choice when it comes to releasing the product.
I agree completely, the artist (or any other copyright owner for that matter). Has the freedom to release his/her content in anyway he/she wants to. You have a choice of going along with it. Just like a coder has the right to release code using GPL and someone else does not have to use it because of that licence.
In the Larry Niven known space novels the belters wear space suits by their own designs, and of course there is fashion in skin tanning.
The concepts sounds quite logical to me.
Joe doesn't really care, as long as he can do everything he expects he'll be happy. ;-)
maybe Joe is right, a lot less worries thatv way
I don't see this...
You pay a subscription to listen to music a limited number of times, perfectly reasonable just like subscription radio. Maybe you feel it's too expensive, take your money somewhere else then...
Same goes for the software, it's offered, and nobody is forcing you to use it, in other words, it's not broken, just not for you.
Getting media attention will be hard around that time with the world cup going on.
I agree, it's quite funny actually to see people respond in all kinds of ways trying to actually make the case against VB, while it's very usable.
I agree, Actually quite funny, that all they asked him not to do was things they would ahve asked him if he used any other way of distribution. And they did not ask anything unreasonable.
Here is some good readign amterial, maybe people should read and _understand_ it before posting on the subject..
i tem.5d61c1d591162e4b0ef1bd108bcd45f3/index.jsp?&pN ame=computer_level1_article&TheCat=1005&path=compu ter/homepage/0506&file=cover1.xml&xsl=article.xsl&
0 ,1144,0131429388,00.html
This does not mean you have to agree with the guy.
http://www.computer.org/portal/site/computer/menu
http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/
Maybe Minix3 is an option.
Encapsulation is not the answer, that will just add more code, and therefor it will have more bugs (encapsulation needs an interface etc too).
I think a microkernel will indeed work better, be more reliable because it allows a limited group of people understand all relevant code of one component.
What you see happening in Linux is exactly Tanenbaum's point for a microkernel. But then again the man is often misunderstood and misquoted.
So how about moving to Minix3? That looks better and better.
If only Linus would have listened to Tanenbaum....
Looking at the european trading scene for example. These guys don't even tell their software vendors how exactly they use their products. That is after all kinds of non disclosure contracts have been signed...
So I do not see this happen, very little companies in this branche will see any tool (software, procedure or whatever) as being non essential to having their own edge.
Hehehe, I do recall a newyear's eve when an arch with a sense of humor set C3PO to aggressive. Didn't last long, fun tho, having him attack players only to run away scared...
(Comming to think of it quite a few Jedi and arches were playing little pranks that new-year's eve, that was a good party, not as good as some of the Kremlin parties, but pretty good)...
I remember Kobra, used to be a great MUD :-)
Hmm, you state:
"I'm puzzled at the attitude the submitter apparently has, in that he seems to be describing environmentalists, and pro-nuke-power people, as two separate groups."
For a long time this was actually quite acurate. At least here in europe all environmental organizations were anti nuke. Nukes were bad, nuke had to be banned, nukes were evil.
Anyone in an environmentalist organiszation as far as I have seen would be persona non grata if they said nuclear energy would be a workable alternative (and yes I ahve been around those organizations but got fed up quickly with the lack of realism, but this may be a regional things).
On the other hand, you will normally find that the speak you see as useless is actually just badly used language. It actually does not mean anything.
(By the way, I've heard that type of non-language in many languages, English, German, Swedish, French, Dutch). That type of non-language is not exclusive to C-speak, I even heard some (mostly less competent) techs do this.
Anyway I know what you mean, but I do not see that as C-Speak, just as badly used language that is something you see more and more everywhere.
Of a system architect actually is being able to speak both languages and do the translation. At least that's what it meant for me. Or even I got the position because I was able to translate.
if you really cannot cope with the C-Speak, maybe you don't want to climb the coorperate ladder, maybe the "Peter priciple" applies to you (it's a book, look it up, amusing and the guy has a point).
I have to agree, most techs don't have the mindset of a business strategist. These different people just speak a different language, just like Techs and finance people speak a different language. All these languages serve their own purpose. Keep in mind that whenever a senior manager talks to techs he wonders about why these techs alwais have to talk techspeak :-)
If you can't deal with the language barrier, I guess you're in the wrong place, I speak both and don't see the differences as a problem.
Acually I think the negative comments on C-Speak shows that people don't understand it and judge it from some misplaced kind of technical elitism (but hey I have been wrong before).
I think there is something to say for both points of view. In some ways the "free labour" sounds tempting, on the other hand having a closed shop with "your own" developers can be much more predictable (mark the can be != is ;-) ). And in that way it is harder to profit from your investment.
And of course there are branches (like where I'm in) where things are mostly secret and the actual cost of internal development is lower than the cost of leaking information (which could just be a way of doing things).
I think in the end it mostly depends on the type of business you're in.
I once had a standards seminar where soemone made the interresing remark that open standards only matter to companies that are behind in marketshare. Once a company is dominant they want closed standards.
Of course "open source" can hardly be defined as a company.