When I read your post, I said "What?" out loud at the end of every
single sentence. Even a crazy place like the government can't have
white-noise executive briefings. I can't believe that the President
of the United States would get a secret security briefing containing
predictions that no one expected to come true.
Besides, the document seems to contain adequate supporting facts.
Anyone who read it should have taken it seriously, even if the author
did not.
What are those cylindrical containers I'm always seeing?
"Bit is the information needed to chose between two equally probable
options"
What are those things I need less of after I compress my data? (This is
your second chance to explain that.)
"But don't feel too bad"
I feel like I'm wasting my time with someone who's too in love with
theoretical definitions to notice reality. A "barrel of oil" is a unit
of volume, and a "bit of information" is a unit of information. But
barrels are not defined as being full of oil, and bits are not defined as
having equally probable states.
Take a break from being smug and consider that maybe no one agrees with
you because you're wrong.
Now that another poster has explained what you are talking about, I can
understand it. But I still think you're wrong.
A bit is a unit of capacity to store information. You can measure an
amount of information by the minimum number of bits required to store
it, but that doesn't define what a bit is. You can measure oil in
barrels, but a barrel isn't defined as being full of oil.
Otherwise, what are you reducing when you compress something?
To be fair, it does four separate things that all deal with how commercial
copyrighted works are treated outside the marketplace. (I made a post
pointing out the same thing before I saw yours, but I don't think the
packaging of the bill is necessarily sinister.)
There's a difference between secrecy and obscurity: the launch codes
for nuclear missiles are secret; garage bands are merely obscure.
Secret passwords are useful, but if your password is the name of your
garage band . . .
"Of course if you had bothered to go to the other site where he had actually
posted you might realize he had considered those things. And even explained
some more things you (and a heck of a lot of other posters) obviously don't
have a clue about."
Of course, if you had bothered to read the post in front of you eyes,
you would have seen the words "I read all that crap" and "Maybe
someday he'll connect those dots." Think for a minute about what those
words mean.
In case you really can't figure it out on your own, I'll tell you what
they mean: I did read what it said on that other site, and I think his own
arguments about licenses undercut his position on BitKeeper and Trigdell.
How could I even begin to say that if I didn't know he had considered
the licensing issue?
"But, you (and others) have already made up your mind so more information
doesn't really matter...."
New information could change my mind, but it would have to be new.
Trigdell, who had no BitKeeper license, queried McVoy's server. McVoy
revoked the licenses of people, including Linus, who had nothing to do
with Trigdell's queries. It makes no sense for Linus to blame Trigdell.
If I send McVoy an email he doesn't like, will he punch Torvalds in the
nose? Will that be my fault, instead of McVoy's?
It's nice to see Linus admitting that licensing problems can make software
as useless as technical flaws. In fact, he now seems to think that
license barriers are a form of incompatibility, and it's irresponsible
to risk having such problems. Good for him. Maybe someday he'll connect
those dots and realize who really fucked up.
"If the govenment gives away free internet access, the 'for pay' services
will not be able to compete and will go under.
"I have no problem with government agencies providing free access
in libraries, parks, airports, schools, and government buildings. I
consider this to be approprtiate and even usefull. I do not, however,
want the government providing free wifi in my home."
I see. Your home is magic place where cheaper, inferior services always drive
superior, more expensive services completely out of business.
"If the Internet does not constitute 'public communication,' what
possibly can?"
The Internet is primarily end-to-end and takes place on a combination
of public and private networks. The airwaves are considered fully owned
by the public, and a broadcast hits every antenna it can reach.
"Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still
work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the
three years."
Maybe.
Everyone who thought BitKeeper was bad idea figured this would
happen and gave it as their reason. (Or at least one reason.) Almost
everyone who thought it was a good idea figured this wouldn't happen or
would take a lot longer to happen.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted."
and:
"Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
You don't lose the right to use the software by breaking the GPL.
You lose the rights granted by the GPL, but the right to use it isn't
one of those. It's a right you have automatically unless you sign it
away, and the GPL just goes out of its way to avoid that.
Also, you only lose the rights on the particular piece of software you
were in violation with. If you're distributing other GPL'ed software in
compliance with the GPL's terms, you can keep doing it. They're
considered separate agreements.
"Those same hormones that cause sex differentiation cause structural
differences in the brain as well. . . they are less predisposed to
technical work -- and pretending something else is true because you
want it to be is intellectually dishonest."
What are the structural differences, and what makes you think they
affect "technical work"? There are other explanations for the small
number of women, why should anyone buy yours?
"Freedom is not absolute. It never is. The old saying that 'your freedom
to swing your fist ends at my face' is as good a way of
explaining it as any."
True.
"The freedom of speech is the most abridged freedom we have."
I'd say that the Second Amendment rights are abridged more often than
free speech. Not to take sides politically, but there's a huge industry
grinding out military-grade weapons that you can't own.
"You're not free to tell somebody else's secrets."
Not true. If you agree not to, they can get you for breaking
the agreement. Sometimes, like when confidential information
is sealed in court, you can't get the information without
agreeing not to talk.
"You're not free to repeat somebody else's words without permission
(with a few exceptions)."
It's the other way around. You are allowed, with some exceptions. It's
true that if someone writes a book, you can't just go Xeroxing pages out
of it. But, it is allowed and very common to quote people or to say "I
talked to Bob, and he said, 'Blah blah blah.'"
"You're not free to lie, in may cases; lying to deprive somebody of
money or value is fraud, and lying to cause harm is slander."
There's that, plus a few others (like perjury). But the illegal lies are
a tiny sliver of the lies that get told.
"The freedom of speech is important, but like all freedoms it has to be
balanced very carefully."
That's true. And, as other posters have pointed out, there's a
difference between civil suits and criminal prosecutions.
They're the same in all the ways you care about, so people who
think they're different are hypocrites? CherryOS is lying to their
customers about what they're selling as a way to make more money. They're
trying to lock up and charge a fee for something that was given away to
everyone. That's a pretty big difference to me.
Copyright gives control. Some use it to help others, some use it to
screw others. I don't have to bend over and treat them the same just
because you sneer at my "hypocrisy."
"She's right and actually has a solution to lessening violence, but we
want our video games!"
Solution? She wants to spend $90 million to check whether there's a
problem. I rarely play video games (and never GTA) but I can think of
much better ways to spend $90 million dollars.
I also think it's a bad when the people pushing for a big research
budget are making angry public statements in favor of a certain
conclusion.
I've got a Thinstation iso with Blackbox on it and the whole iso is only 5.4M. The stuff
on it is probably compressed, but I really doubt that the whole thing
(including kernel, X server, xterm, and a bunch of networking clients)
compresses to less than Blackbox. I rarely use it, but I think it's
got a bunch of optional add-on programs that you might have included.
"'Because it's worthless if X is zero, we should always sacrifice other
things to increase X.'
Why is that false logic?"
Because 'must have some' != 'more is always better'. Food, for example.
Also, you're misunderstanding what I (and the OpenOffice.org people)
mean by "functionality." It does not refer to how useful the software is
to DogDude, it refers to the range of problems that the software can
solve during normal usage. If we expand that range, but at the same
time make the software impossible for DogDude to use, we have increased
functionality by sacrificing things that matter to DogDude.
All of your examples actually make my point once you realize what the
OpenOffice.org people really mean. Functionality has increased and many
users are getting rich using an Access replacement, running Ubuntu, and
giving their customers blowjobs. But DogDude is left out in the cold
because the Java license clashes with his company's policies, he needs
an OS that supports his existing hardware, and his users insist on
credit cards. Those things have been sacrificed for functionality.
It's false reasoning to say, "Because it's worthless if X is zero, we
should always sacrifice other things to increase X." Pick any software
you use at work and propose to your boss that you double the
functionality by making it incompatible with everything else you use.
The answer will be "No."
In fact, it sounds like you weren't able to use Ubuntu because it was
incompatible with your hardware or just hard to use--probably because those
things were traded off for functionality.
"Your SSN number is not required for this service (because that would
land us in jail), but without it we cannot process your application
(meaning you don't get the service)."
The really funny part is that Gore will probably end up getting credit
for what he did. That joke never seems to die, but it always pops up
without any context. I've already seen people who actually think he
invented some of the technology because they've only heard the joke.
A hundred years from now, they'll be researching for a textbook on the
history of the Internet and they'll wonder "Who was this 'Al Gore'
anyway?" Then they'll dig into the government records and write
one of those little textbook sidebars:
"Dubbed 'the inventor of the Internet' for his strong early support of
publicly accessible shared networking, senator Albert Gore later became
Vice President of the United States."
The hardware NAT routers at your local big box retailer address the
first few points on your list. Those things are basically appliances
running stripped-down embedded versions of BSD or something similar.
It doesn't "break the Internet" to have an invisible subnetwork with a
translating router. Nor does it "break the Internet" to only accept
connections on ports where you actually intend to offer data.
If a home user wants to run server software and expose it to the world,
a NAT router forces them to jump through an extra hoop. That's all.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read your post, I said "What?" out loud at the end of every single sentence. Even a crazy place like the government can't have white-noise executive briefings. I can't believe that the President of the United States would get a secret security briefing containing predictions that no one expected to come true.
Besides, the document seems to contain adequate supporting facts. Anyone who read it should have taken it seriously, even if the author did not.
What are those cylindrical containers I'm always seeing?
What are those things I need less of after I compress my data? (This is your second chance to explain that.)
I feel like I'm wasting my time with someone who's too in love with theoretical definitions to notice reality. A "barrel of oil" is a unit of volume, and a "bit of information" is a unit of information. But barrels are not defined as being full of oil, and bits are not defined as having equally probable states.
Take a break from being smug and consider that maybe no one agrees with you because you're wrong.
Now that another poster has explained what you are talking about, I can understand it. But I still think you're wrong.
A bit is a unit of capacity to store information. You can measure an amount of information by the minimum number of bits required to store it, but that doesn't define what a bit is. You can measure oil in barrels, but a barrel isn't defined as being full of oil.
Otherwise, what are you reducing when you compress something?
There's no requirement that they be equally probable: the bits from /dev/zero are still bits. Also, I think you have it backwards on
compression.
To be fair, it does four separate things that all deal with how commercial copyrighted works are treated outside the marketplace. (I made a post pointing out the same thing before I saw yours, but I don't think the packaging of the bill is necessarily sinister.)
Maybe you should submit the other two?
link from the article.
There's a difference between secrecy and obscurity: the launch codes for nuclear missiles are secret; garage bands are merely obscure. Secret passwords are useful, but if your password is the name of your garage band . . .
Of course, if you had bothered to read the post in front of you eyes, you would have seen the words "I read all that crap" and "Maybe someday he'll connect those dots." Think for a minute about what those words mean.
In case you really can't figure it out on your own, I'll tell you what they mean: I did read what it said on that other site, and I think his own arguments about licenses undercut his position on BitKeeper and Trigdell. How could I even begin to say that if I didn't know he had considered the licensing issue?
New information could change my mind, but it would have to be new.
I read all that crap, and Linus is still wrong.
Trigdell, who had no BitKeeper license, queried McVoy's server. McVoy revoked the licenses of people, including Linus, who had nothing to do with Trigdell's queries. It makes no sense for Linus to blame Trigdell. If I send McVoy an email he doesn't like, will he punch Torvalds in the nose? Will that be my fault, instead of McVoy's?
It's nice to see Linus admitting that licensing problems can make software as useless as technical flaws. In fact, he now seems to think that license barriers are a form of incompatibility, and it's irresponsible to risk having such problems. Good for him. Maybe someday he'll connect those dots and realize who really fucked up.
I see. Your home is magic place where cheaper, inferior services always drive superior, more expensive services completely out of business.
The Internet is primarily end-to-end and takes place on a combination of public and private networks. The airwaves are considered fully owned by the public, and a broadcast hits every antenna it can reach.
Maybe.
Everyone who thought BitKeeper was bad idea figured this would happen and gave it as their reason. (Or at least one reason.) Almost everyone who thought it was a good idea figured this wouldn't happen or would take a lot longer to happen.
Then it happened.
You don't lose the right to use the software by breaking the GPL. You lose the rights granted by the GPL, but the right to use it isn't one of those. It's a right you have automatically unless you sign it away, and the GPL just goes out of its way to avoid that.
Also, you only lose the rights on the particular piece of software you were in violation with. If you're distributing other GPL'ed software in compliance with the GPL's terms, you can keep doing it. They're considered separate agreements.
What are the structural differences, and what makes you think they affect "technical work"? There are other explanations for the small number of women, why should anyone buy yours?
I didn't say the Amendment was violated, just that the right it grants is abridged more often, i.e. the exceptions happen more frequently.
I specifically said I didn't want to argue whether the exceptions were a good thing or not. I guess guns are one of those touchy subjects.
My point was that there are a lot more weapons you can't own than things you can't say. That's all.
True.
I'd say that the Second Amendment rights are abridged more often than free speech. Not to take sides politically, but there's a huge industry grinding out military-grade weapons that you can't own.
Not true. If you agree not to, they can get you for breaking the agreement. Sometimes, like when confidential information is sealed in court, you can't get the information without agreeing not to talk.
It's the other way around. You are allowed, with some exceptions. It's true that if someone writes a book, you can't just go Xeroxing pages out of it. But, it is allowed and very common to quote people or to say "I talked to Bob, and he said, 'Blah blah blah.'"
There's that, plus a few others (like perjury). But the illegal lies are a tiny sliver of the lies that get told.
That's true. And, as other posters have pointed out, there's a difference between civil suits and criminal prosecutions.
They're the same in all the ways you care about, so people who think they're different are hypocrites? CherryOS is lying to their customers about what they're selling as a way to make more money. They're trying to lock up and charge a fee for something that was given away to everyone. That's a pretty big difference to me.
Copyright gives control. Some use it to help others, some use it to screw others. I don't have to bend over and treat them the same just because you sneer at my "hypocrisy."
I also think it's a bad when the people pushing for a big research budget are making angry public statements in favor of a certain conclusion.
I've got a Thinstation iso with Blackbox on it and the whole iso is only 5.4M. The stuff on it is probably compressed, but I really doubt that the whole thing (including kernel, X server, xterm, and a bunch of networking clients) compresses to less than Blackbox. I rarely use it, but I think it's got a bunch of optional add-on programs that you might have included.
Because 'must have some' != 'more is always better'. Food, for example.
Also, you're misunderstanding what I (and the OpenOffice.org people) mean by "functionality." It does not refer to how useful the software is to DogDude, it refers to the range of problems that the software can solve during normal usage. If we expand that range, but at the same time make the software impossible for DogDude to use, we have increased functionality by sacrificing things that matter to DogDude.
All of your examples actually make my point once you realize what the OpenOffice.org people really mean. Functionality has increased and many users are getting rich using an Access replacement, running Ubuntu, and giving their customers blowjobs. But DogDude is left out in the cold because the Java license clashes with his company's policies, he needs an OS that supports his existing hardware, and his users insist on credit cards. Those things have been sacrificed for functionality.
Except the diamond example.
(I don't understand your diamond analogy at all.)
It's false reasoning to say, "Because it's worthless if X is zero, we should always sacrifice other things to increase X." Pick any software you use at work and propose to your boss that you double the functionality by making it incompatible with everything else you use. The answer will be "No."
In fact, it sounds like you weren't able to use Ubuntu because it was incompatible with your hardware or just hard to use--probably because those things were traded off for functionality.
Consistency, compatibility, support, long-term availability, appropriate licensing, security, dollar amount (not currently an issue with Java), adaptability, maturity, overall quality . . .
"Your SSN number is not required for this service (because that would land us in jail), but without it we cannot process your application (meaning you don't get the service)."
The really funny part is that Gore will probably end up getting credit for what he did. That joke never seems to die, but it always pops up without any context. I've already seen people who actually think he invented some of the technology because they've only heard the joke.
A hundred years from now, they'll be researching for a textbook on the history of the Internet and they'll wonder "Who was this 'Al Gore' anyway?" Then they'll dig into the government records and write one of those little textbook sidebars:
What are you talking about?
The hardware NAT routers at your local big box retailer address the first few points on your list. Those things are basically appliances running stripped-down embedded versions of BSD or something similar.
It doesn't "break the Internet" to have an invisible subnetwork with a translating router. Nor does it "break the Internet" to only accept connections on ports where you actually intend to offer data.
If a home user wants to run server software and expose it to the world, a NAT router forces them to jump through an extra hoop. That's all.