While we're dreaming... Why couldn't the display have folding modes? When you activate "fold" mode, the material becomes foldable. When you activate "flat" mode, the material loses the creases. It should be relatively easy to accomplish if you line the material with microinflatable strands that can be filled and emptied to change between modes. WHen filled, you are in "flat" mode. When vacuumed, you are in "fold" mode. Could apply to rollup as well, I suppose.
There is nothing unethical about copying code (or anything for that matter). The only reason it *appears* to be unethical is because of the veil of laws, licensing and rules that have been put in place to restrict the copying for to the benefit of the WRONG people.
It's a pretty complex issue as Stallman points out, so to put it under the blanket of IP is very dishonest. At the base, here's how it should work:
1. An individual comes up with an idea 2. That individual uses that idea to make a product or service (software, music, a business plan, etc...)
**3** It's at this point that the individual has a few choices to make: a. Keep it to myself and use it to my benefit b. Share it with the world and allow everyone to benefit c. Share it with the world on a restricted basis for my lifetime while benefiting from it. After my death, it becomes everyone's. d. Share it with the world on a restricted basis benefiting me and my shareholders for as long as the idea is profitable. (That's what we have today in most of the world)
This is where the problem comes in. Too many people are too fixated on the idea of getting rich and could care less about helping out their fellow citizens. Because of this, the copyright, patent and trademark laws have been several levels removed from the originator of the idea. The protection is no longer for the originator or creator, but for his employer, or worse yet, the distributor of the good or service. All the while, the person with the brain is getting peanuts, while a lot of people with very little upstairs get the lion's share.
Stallman is right. IP is a ridiculous and dangerous idea. If you don't want to be ensnared in the trap, the best approach is to use the GPL where computer software is concerned. And be very mindful of the true issue in regard to your inventions: copyright, patent and trademark.
In this specific dispute with SCO, we're not talking about the userland tools but about the kernel itself.
If that's the case, then why is SCO going after IBM instead of Linus? It has nothing to do with the kernel itself. It has to do with "IP" that SCO claims ownership of. Therefore, RMS's commentary is very relevant in that "Intellectual Property" is a worthless concept. It's yet another case of "Attack of the Middlemen". SCO is just a company full of people who are experts at getting in the middle of something and then using diversionary tactics to try and litigate profit out of their targets. The sooner we rid the world of the IP concept the better. Of course as long as we have greedy bastards at the helm, it's going to be hard to do that. The best way to screw them, is to use the GPL and GNU software. Avoid using anything that anyone can claim is their IP.
Perhaps this really isn't about Linux at all? Maybe SCO is actually going for the GPL's throat. It would seem to make sense in light of the anti-protest signs where they tried to paint Linux and it's users with the broad brush of "communism" and "piracy". I know there is a lot of disgust with the GPL in the corporate world because it creates a truly level playing field which is something no good little capitalist wants. I've heard over and over on this board from several neocons that it's always better to have every unfair advantage over your competitors as possible. That's pretty much the complete opposite of what the GPL stands for. If they wind up winning AND proving that corporations can break the GPL and get away with it, then they will have gained the ultimate unfair advantage indeed.
Mike Nelson: Thanks Crow. We try raising the level of discussion at least once on the show and as usual you bring it down again by play at being a bear. And what happens? You TURN INTO A BEAR! Good job. About as good as SCO is doing at convincing anyone that they have the goods on Linux. D'oh! See what you made me do!
Interesting idea. However, I don't think it would be possible to make a "nanoseed" of a car, spaceship or building in the same way. Especially one that was already existing pre-nanotech. However, it might be possible (and very interesting) to make a "nanoseed" that mimics a plant seed to grow a car, spaceship or building in a more organic way. Maybe that's how we get stuff that looks like a Geiger painting to really happen.:)
A friend and I were having a discussion about this a few months ago. We both love "technology", but I think I tend to overboard on the side of seeing it as the tool withi which all problems can be solved. My friend has a more cautious view. He suggested that eventually there will be a time when this stuff will probably result in many problems:
-War (over who should use it and how it should be used.) -New nanotech based "diseases" caused by their proliferation -Political and ethical issues that no one can even dream of right now
The usual stuff to be sure, but nonetheless the kind of thing that someone like me would never think about. I think you are correct in your assertion that society and governance will have trouble catching up. They are already having trouble with the Internet alone. (Think spam regulation)
On another subtopic: I think that nanotech in it's current form is very much akin to the early days of computing when the first nixie tubes were being used as a display device. They displayed information in a very rudimentary fashion that still required human intervention to be interpreted to the common man.
What I think will be interesting in the future of nanotech is when we can manipulate matter as we do pixels in today's 3d rendering engines. Think of it as rendering reality... with filters... and the ability to manipulate textures... colors... etc.
I would suggest that all the algorithms we've been developing for 3D rendering will be the very fundamentals of matter manipulation software. Of course there are many other factors that we currently ignore in 3D that will be essential to real matter. (Don't want hollow object for one thing)
Just imagine the possibility of applying encryption and compression algorithms on matter.:) You store the data model of your physical object and you discard the portions of the model that are repetitious.
From the technical angle, it's going to be a lot of fun. From the societal angle it's going to be very tumultuous.
Personally, I think that eventually waste dumps are going to become goldmines for discarded matter to use in the manufacturing of new materials. If I were interested in making money long term, I'd probably buy a few garbage dumps now and keep them in the family.
This is the funniest thing I've seen on Slashdot ever. My friend and I used to use Microsoft Comic Chat back in the 90s to do "chat terrorism". gdiersing, you are now on my friends list. Welcome and keep up the good work.
You make a good point. But check out my journal entry for today to get a slightly better explanation for many ills that plague our society. A lot of them can be traced back to overuse of antibiotics with no thought of taking probiotics to combat their negative effects.
IT just has to do with sworking style. TO be honest, I'm very flexible with regard to GUIs. I prefer GNOME in general for Linux, Windows XP native (Luna) for Windows, and X Window system with twm for when I am on a system with limited resources. In general, there really isn't much of a difference at all. You just need a good memory to remember the feature set of each environment. Remember, there are people like me out there who love GUIs like GNOME, KDE, Mac OS X and Windows XP to varying degrees, but we also like Emacs, vi, bash, csh, etc... I am always bouncing between all of those environments depending on which one suits the task at hand. Bash's Emacs style command editing is VERY powerful. twm's ability to be customized isn't too bad once you get to understand it. The other "advanced" systems are fine too, but sometimes I don't need a nuclear sub when I can swim.
Wow. You are an idiot. George Bush is EXACTLY like SCO. And like the original post said, George is an alcoholic who spouts off nonsense (like WMD) as well. It's a VERY apt analogy. Unless of course you've given into the Bush administration's brainwashing.
It has a lot of really cool concepts in it, so I am hoping to see it grow. What would really be cool is if some of the GUI concepts made it over to Linux and Unix and some of the "theming" made it over to Plan 9.:)
The parent deserved a repost. Please mod the parent up. Not me. The parent was funny and very true. If they didn't post AC, they'd be on my friend's list now.
You can believe that if you wish. The point is that the extra money doesn't do you a whole lot of good if you can't spend time outiside of work using it. Making money just for the sake of having more money has absolutely no value. I'd far rather have more time away from work and make less money, than make tons of money and never leave work. The only time I care for overtime is when I have no choice but to work longer. Does it make me happy? Hell no! It pisses the hell out of me. The only reason I might work a long day or two is because some suit somewhere in the company made a goof and bought into some crappy product that *I* have to make work now. I will do the extra time and take the overtime (or comp time which I do more often because it's worth more than the money) but I am pissed off and have a bad attitude about it the whole time. I have less of a bad attitude about comp time because at least I know that I will have a little more time away from work.
Dude... you need to chill out. No one has a right to make anyone work for more than the amount of time that was agreed upon. If the job doesn't get finished within the 8 hour (or 7.5 hour in my case) work day, then the company either needs to hire new staff or needs to seriously reconsider the value of the project. This over extension of "nose to the grind stone" has got to stop. There is nothing "macho" about working 12 hours a day when you don't have a life outside of work to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
I have every right to say, "it's 5:00PM. I'm going home now". And I do. Every day. At least I work for a sane and humane employer. Granted I don't make a six figue salary and would be considered "poor" by most of the Slashdot neocons. But having more time outside of work then at work is worth more to me than six figures, an SUV and a cluster home.
Europe has the right idea. If we all worked less, we'd get more done with a higher level of quality. And maybe not everyone would be as uptight.
Your original statement implies that changing a career to attain some sense of security is a good idea. However, I would never want to do anything else other than work with computers (except possibly compose music, make movies or be a professional photographer). It might be "wiser" for me to be a lawyer or a "suit", but I would hate that. I could do it, but I would hate it with a passion that no one has ever seen before because I hate business.
Money is only incidental to what I do. I love working with computers primarly. Making money just happens to be a happy accident. I am not opposed to making a REASONABLE amount of money for what I do. I just have no plans to get rich. That has never been, and never will be my goal. Ever.
As for outsourcing - why don't you just go back to school and educate yourself into a position that is too specialized to be outsourced?
The majority of us don't work with computers because we ant to make money. At least the best of us don't. The best of us do this because we love working with computers. The only people who do ANY job to make lots of money are just greedy bastards with no original thought, talent or intelligence. In general, I refer to those kind of people as "sheeple".
Slashdot Mirror
While we're dreaming... Why couldn't the display have folding modes? When you activate "fold" mode, the material becomes foldable. When you activate "flat" mode, the material loses the creases. It should be relatively easy to accomplish if you line the material with microinflatable strands that can be filled and emptied to change between modes. WHen filled, you are in "flat" mode. When vacuumed, you are in "fold" mode. Could apply to rollup as well, I suppose.
There is nothing unethical about copying code (or anything for that matter). The only reason it *appears* to be unethical is because of the veil of laws, licensing and rules that have been put in place to restrict the copying for to the benefit of the WRONG people.
It's a pretty complex issue as Stallman points out, so to put it under the blanket of IP is very dishonest. At the base, here's how it should work:
1. An individual comes up with an idea
2. That individual uses that idea to make a product or service (software, music, a business plan, etc...)
**3** It's at this point that the individual has a few choices to make:
a. Keep it to myself and use it to my benefit
b. Share it with the world and allow everyone to benefit
c. Share it with the world on a restricted basis for my lifetime while benefiting from it. After my death, it becomes everyone's.
d. Share it with the world on a restricted basis benefiting me and my shareholders for as long as the idea is profitable. (That's what we have today in most of the world)
This is where the problem comes in. Too many people are too fixated on the idea of getting rich and could care less about helping out their fellow citizens. Because of this, the copyright, patent and trademark laws have been several levels removed from the originator of the idea. The protection is no longer for the originator or creator, but for his employer, or worse yet, the distributor of the good or service. All the while, the person with the brain is getting peanuts, while a lot of people with very little upstairs get the lion's share.
Stallman is right. IP is a ridiculous and dangerous idea. If you don't want to be ensnared in the trap, the best approach is to use the GPL where computer software is concerned. And be very mindful of the true issue in regard to your inventions: copyright, patent and trademark.
If that's the case, then why is SCO going after IBM instead of Linus? It has nothing to do with the kernel itself. It has to do with "IP" that SCO claims ownership of. Therefore, RMS's commentary is very relevant in that "Intellectual Property" is a worthless concept. It's yet another case of "Attack of the Middlemen". SCO is just a company full of people who are experts at getting in the middle of something and then using diversionary tactics to try and litigate profit out of their targets. The sooner we rid the world of the IP concept the better. Of course as long as we have greedy bastards at the helm, it's going to be hard to do that. The best way to screw them, is to use the GPL and GNU software. Avoid using anything that anyone can claim is their IP.
Fine. I'll cal what I use GNU/Linux then. And you won't complain about it right?
Perhaps this really isn't about Linux at all? Maybe SCO is actually going for the GPL's throat. It would seem to make sense in light of the anti-protest signs where they tried to paint Linux and it's users with the broad brush of "communism" and "piracy". I know there is a lot of disgust with the GPL in the corporate world because it creates a truly level playing field which is something no good little capitalist wants. I've heard over and over on this board from several neocons that it's always better to have every unfair advantage over your competitors as possible. That's pretty much the complete opposite of what the GPL stands for. If they wind up winning AND proving that corporations can break the GPL and get away with it, then they will have gained the ultimate unfair advantage indeed.
Mike Nelson: Thanks Crow. We try raising the level of discussion at least once on the show and as usual you bring it down again by play at being a bear. And what happens? You TURN INTO A BEAR! Good job. About as good as SCO is doing at convincing anyone that they have the goods on Linux. D'oh! See what you made me do!
Hey! Where are all the "w00t! It's summer" trolls today? Considering that it IS actually summer today... ;P -1 Offtopic.
Interesting idea. However, I don't think it would be possible to make a "nanoseed" of a car, spaceship or building in the same way. Especially one that was already existing pre-nanotech. However, it might be possible (and very interesting) to make a "nanoseed" that mimics a plant seed to grow a car, spaceship or building in a more organic way. Maybe that's how we get stuff that looks like a Geiger painting to really happen. :)
A friend and I were having a discussion about this a few months ago. We both love "technology", but I think I tend to overboard on the side of seeing it as the tool withi which all problems can be solved. My friend has a more cautious view. He suggested that eventually there will be a time when this stuff will probably result in many problems:
:) You store the data model of your physical object and you discard the portions of the model that are repetitious.
-War (over who should use it and how it should be used.)
-New nanotech based "diseases" caused by their proliferation
-Political and ethical issues that no one can even dream of right now
The usual stuff to be sure, but nonetheless the kind of thing that someone like me would never think about. I think you are correct in your assertion that society and governance will have trouble catching up. They are already having trouble with the Internet alone. (Think spam regulation)
On another subtopic: I think that nanotech in it's current form is very much akin to the early days of computing when the first nixie tubes were being used as a display device. They displayed information in a very rudimentary fashion that still required human intervention to be interpreted to the common man.
What I think will be interesting in the future of nanotech is when we can manipulate matter as we do pixels in today's 3d rendering engines. Think of it as rendering reality... with filters... and the ability to manipulate textures... colors... etc.
I would suggest that all the algorithms we've been developing for 3D rendering will be the very fundamentals of matter manipulation software. Of course there are many other factors that we currently ignore in 3D that will be essential to real matter. (Don't want hollow object for one thing)
Just imagine the possibility of applying encryption and compression algorithms on matter.
From the technical angle, it's going to be a lot of fun. From the societal angle it's going to be very tumultuous.
Personally, I think that eventually waste dumps are going to become goldmines for discarded matter to use in the manufacturing of new materials. If I were interested in making money long term, I'd probably buy a few garbage dumps now and keep them in the family.
Devil's advocate: But the government is supposed to work for us. We are their employers in a perfect world.
So what OS do you prefer? WeenieDOS? ;P
Hatred leads to fear. Fear leads to ???? and ???? leads to profit. - Yoda
This is the funniest thing I've seen on Slashdot ever. My friend and I used to use Microsoft Comic Chat back in the 90s to do "chat terrorism". gdiersing, you are now on my friends list. Welcome and keep up the good work.
You make a good point. But check out my journal entry for today to get a slightly better explanation for many ills that plague our society. A lot of them can be traced back to overuse of antibiotics with no thought of taking probiotics to combat their negative effects.
IT just has to do with sworking style. TO be honest, I'm very flexible with regard to GUIs. I prefer GNOME in general for Linux, Windows XP native (Luna) for Windows, and X Window system with twm for when I am on a system with limited resources. In general, there really isn't much of a difference at all. You just need a good memory to remember the feature set of each environment. Remember, there are people like me out there who love GUIs like GNOME, KDE, Mac OS X and Windows XP to varying degrees, but we also like Emacs, vi, bash, csh, etc... I am always bouncing between all of those environments depending on which one suits the task at hand. Bash's Emacs style command editing is VERY powerful. twm's ability to be customized isn't too bad once you get to understand it. The other "advanced" systems are fine too, but sometimes I don't need a nuclear sub when I can swim.
Wow. You are an idiot. George Bush is EXACTLY like SCO. And like the original post said, George is an alcoholic who spouts off nonsense (like WMD) as well. It's a VERY apt analogy. Unless of course you've given into the Bush administration's brainwashing.
It has a lot of really cool concepts in it, so I am hoping to see it grow. What would really be cool is if some of the GUI concepts made it over to Linux and Unix and some of the "theming" made it over to Plan 9. :)
Linux Kernel = Oil Wells
IP = WMD
The parent deserved a repost. Please mod the parent up. Not me. The parent was funny and very true. If they didn't post AC, they'd be on my friend's list now.
You can believe that if you wish. The point is that the extra money doesn't do you a whole lot of good if you can't spend time outiside of work using it. Making money just for the sake of having more money has absolutely no value. I'd far rather have more time away from work and make less money, than make tons of money and never leave work. The only time I care for overtime is when I have no choice but to work longer. Does it make me happy? Hell no! It pisses the hell out of me. The only reason I might work a long day or two is because some suit somewhere in the company made a goof and bought into some crappy product that *I* have to make work now. I will do the extra time and take the overtime (or comp time which I do more often because it's worth more than the money) but I am pissed off and have a bad attitude about it the whole time. I have less of a bad attitude about comp time because at least I know that I will have a little more time away from work.
Dude... you need to chill out. No one has a right to make anyone work for more than the amount of time that was agreed upon. If the job doesn't get finished within the 8 hour (or 7.5 hour in my case) work day, then the company either needs to hire new staff or needs to seriously reconsider the value of the project. This over extension of "nose to the grind stone" has got to stop. There is nothing "macho" about working 12 hours a day when you don't have a life outside of work to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
I have every right to say, "it's 5:00PM. I'm going home now". And I do. Every day. At least I work for a sane and humane employer. Granted I don't make a six figue salary and would be considered "poor" by most of the Slashdot neocons. But having more time outside of work then at work is worth more to me than six figures, an SUV and a cluster home.
Europe has the right idea. If we all worked less, we'd get more done with a higher level of quality. And maybe not everyone would be as uptight.
Your original statement implies that changing a career to attain some sense of security is a good idea. However, I would never want to do anything else other than work with computers (except possibly compose music, make movies or be a professional photographer). It might be "wiser" for me to be a lawyer or a "suit", but I would hate that. I could do it, but I would hate it with a passion that no one has ever seen before because I hate business.
Money is only incidental to what I do. I love working with computers primarly. Making money just happens to be a happy accident. I am not opposed to making a REASONABLE amount of money for what I do. I just have no plans to get rich. That has never been, and never will be my goal. Ever.
The majority of us don't work with computers because we ant to make money. At least the best of us don't. The best of us do this because we love working with computers. The only people who do ANY job to make lots of money are just greedy bastards with no original thought, talent or intelligence. In general, I refer to those kind of people as "sheeple".
I always mod PowerPoint presentations to '-5 no real information content'. :)
Hello Stinky. Welcome Friend! :)