If drones were equipped with automatic collision prevention systems, would those same systems not be used by opposition forces to detect the presence of these drones? The whole point of most of these drones is stealthy surveillance and/or attack.
Model I and "Creative Computing" books/magazines for me. Amazing that these books are available in eBook format now. Search for "David Ahl" on Amazon. Also here: http://www.atariarchives.org/bcc1/
Had loads of fun with Lunar Lander, Hunt the Wumpus, Super Star Trek, and many others.
Maybe a functional theocracy with an end-of-the-world complex developing nuclear weapons wasn't such a good idea.
They have an end-of-the-world complex? Citation please? I'm only familiar with the doomsday preppers here in the U.S. Something similar going on in Iran?
Build it. We have cars that fly. They are called airplanes. J. Random Citizen cannot just buy a plane and fly it. In the early days of aviation they could. But it quickly became clear that some form of training and licensing was required. If it is anything like your analogy, sure -- not everyone will be qualified. And they may put other people in danger. But we have laws to protect us from the most egregious idiocy and the regulatory framework, if needed, will be put in place quickly enough. (I say that and yet believe that we should have already instituted a "port 25" license, a "port 80" license, an "amateur internet operator license", and a "white hat security" license.)
The Republicans need to drive the wackos out if they ever want to win the presidency, but they can't because their brand has been destroyed by the pandering to racists, creationists, global warming deniers, and other lunatics.
Yep. It took a while, but Rupert Murdoch has been a boon to the Democrats in the long run. The lefties are no longer outraged at Fox News. Instead they now get a chuckle from every sham news story they broadcast.
Work smarter, not harder. That's the way it has been going for thousands of years of civilization and social advancement. We still need low-skilled work, but those will be fewer and lower paying the more people compete for those jobs. And skilled jobs will grow and wages will increase as employers compete for those skills. The intelligence and education required to stay in the middle class will continue to increase.
There will be incentive to create tools and technology to use those lower-skilled, less expensive workers just as there are today. You don't need a comp sci degree to work on an automotive computer system to repair cars. The same gear-heads (I use that term affectionately) that worked on cars in the '70s do so today. Tools will make today's high-tech jobs require less skill to do more advanced work.
Who would have thought in 1970 that, 40 years later, functional literacy would require understanding of how to use computers? Or that we would all carry those computers in our pockets. In 40 years, who knows what "functional literacy" will look like? Everyone able to program a computer? Probably, but "programming" won't look much like it does today. The only thing that matters in the end is how fast an individual can learn and adapt to a changing world.
I find it rather abhorrent that the "Web Development" has become a mish-mash of technologies: HTTP, HTML, JS, CSS and extensions: DOM, AJAX.
Has become? Back in the day HTML was a mish-mash of tags and (eventually) DOM models that were abhorrent and incompatible across browsers.
As soon as you standardize one thing, then the big boys are on to the next big thing. You still have a myriad ways to generate web content, all of which should shield the developer from most of the madness. Standards are good for taking a snapshot of the state of the art at a point in time, allowing developers to say "I support this version" and browsers to guarantee they will render standardized versions correctly. I expect every browser on the market today to correctly render all standardized versions of HTML.
My goal is to discourage copyrights extending that length of time. Only if one really thought the content was worth many billions would one choose to extend it that long. And society would get reimbursed for the loss to the public domain.
Copyright terms should not be limited to fixed terms. First 14 year term is free + one time unlimited extension costing $50 * (1.7^years). Paid up front after year 14. No further extensions. Indexed to inflation.
That's not entirely in the public domain. I release stuff under many licenses, as well as putting them in the public domain. I usually have a very clear idea of what I choose to do and why I do it. And my views have certainly evolved in the past 14 years since that statement was initially attached to that website. Besides, people have made (and continue to make) fair use of code and images published on that site.
Ah, I see. You are too myopic to see the myriad alternatives. if you can only see a world of "intellectual property" then the free exchange of ideas may have no meaning to you. People who want to use the code in "intellectual property" may have a problem. The rest of us do not.
Do I want to go back to those days? Absolutely. Having that music in the public domain is part of cultural wealth of the United States. The copyright of performances of white artists playing music put in the public domain by black musicians and songwriters did not remove that music from the public domain. We are all wealthier together for the gift those artists gave us. Disney does the same thing with Mother Goose, Bros Grimm, HCA, etc. Those works are all still in the public domain. You are free to copy them and adapt the original stories.
Were there inequities? Sure. But I would argue that the we are paying a much heavier cost today. Besides, the music industry has found new and improved ways to rape and pillage the artists they purport to represent. The poor and uneducated will always be at a disadvantage. No one can argue that the IP regime we have today is a just system. Might still makes right. Whoever can afford the most lawyers wins.
We now have a place to easily and instantly publish ideas which provides permanent proof of what is in the public domain. Let's use it.
Because if the code is public domain, then you can modify it in any conceivable way and the original author(s) lose all ability to control not only use (which is the point of selecting the BSD license) but content, such as statements that "this code is public domain."
Who cares?!? Copying the code and removing the statement "this code is in the public domain" does not remove the code from the public domain.
Not at all. The number of copyrighted works would plummet to acceptable levels (with the value of ideas being added to the public domain returning to normal, healthy levels), rather than the copyright pandemic we are currently experiencing. The only thing deserving of copyright protection are those things that the creator deems valuable enough to seek copyright protection. And then we could do interesting things like exponentially scale the cost of registration based on the duration the author wishes to maintain their monopoly on the work.
Personally, this is why I feel that the recent invention of the "automatic copyright" grant is an epic fail. By default all published works should be in the public domain. Only those that are explicitly marked by the author with a copyright and a license should be protected.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeez give it a rest, there are people on this planet who'd do anything to live in our democracy and you cheapen the word with your trinket dispenser.
No one is cheapening the word -- it's its usage in this form predates your absurdist politically correct world view.
Google, tell us what "democratizing" means.
If drones were equipped with automatic collision prevention systems, would those same systems not be used by opposition forces to detect the presence of these drones? The whole point of most of these drones is stealthy surveillance and/or attack.
Model I and "Creative Computing" books/magazines for me. Amazing that these books are available in eBook format now. Search for "David Ahl" on Amazon. Also here: http://www.atariarchives.org/bcc1/
Had loads of fun with Lunar Lander, Hunt the Wumpus, Super Star Trek, and many others.
Maybe a functional theocracy with an end-of-the-world complex developing nuclear weapons wasn't such a good idea.
They have an end-of-the-world complex? Citation please? I'm only familiar with the doomsday preppers here in the U.S. Something similar going on in Iran?
Build it. We have cars that fly. They are called airplanes. J. Random Citizen cannot just buy a plane and fly it. In the early days of aviation they could. But it quickly became clear that some form of training and licensing was required. If it is anything like your analogy, sure -- not everyone will be qualified. And they may put other people in danger. But we have laws to protect us from the most egregious idiocy and the regulatory framework, if needed, will be put in place quickly enough. (I say that and yet believe that we should have already instituted a "port 25" license, a "port 80" license, an "amateur internet operator license", and a "white hat security" license.)
This message brought to you by the hometown newspaper for what is usually considered one of the more politically corrupt cities in the country.
Politically?? My Dear Sir, we do not limit our corruption to just government and politics in this fine city. What do you take us for? Amateurs?
Colbert is no a doctor though...
Of course he is! http://wikiality.wikia.com/Dr._Stephen_T._Colbert,_D.F.A.
That's the only thing about this story that caught my attention.
It helps the lawyers. Anyone on SCOTUS not a J.D.? They have a somewhat biased view of the world.
The Republicans need to drive the wackos out if they ever want to win the presidency, but they can't because their brand has been destroyed by the pandering to racists, creationists, global warming deniers, and other lunatics.
Yep. It took a while, but Rupert Murdoch has been a boon to the Democrats in the long run. The lefties are no longer outraged at Fox News. Instead they now get a chuckle from every sham news story they broadcast.
Why would an infinite number of quark-antiquark pairs not have infinite mass? Do antiquarks have negative mass?
It keeps the riff-raff away.
Which is basically that everyone bought into the myth that the only person who matters is the person at the top.
Trickle-down, baby. Trickle-down.
Work smarter, not harder. That's the way it has been going for thousands of years of civilization and social advancement. We still need low-skilled work, but those will be fewer and lower paying the more people compete for those jobs. And skilled jobs will grow and wages will increase as employers compete for those skills. The intelligence and education required to stay in the middle class will continue to increase.
There will be incentive to create tools and technology to use those lower-skilled, less expensive workers just as there are today. You don't need a comp sci degree to work on an automotive computer system to repair cars. The same gear-heads (I use that term affectionately) that worked on cars in the '70s do so today. Tools will make today's high-tech jobs require less skill to do more advanced work.
Who would have thought in 1970 that, 40 years later, functional literacy would require understanding of how to use computers? Or that we would all carry those computers in our pockets. In 40 years, who knows what "functional literacy" will look like? Everyone able to program a computer? Probably, but "programming" won't look much like it does today. The only thing that matters in the end is how fast an individual can learn and adapt to a changing world.
I find it rather abhorrent that the "Web Development" has become a mish-mash of technologies: HTTP, HTML, JS, CSS and extensions: DOM, AJAX.
Has become? Back in the day HTML was a mish-mash of tags and (eventually) DOM models that were abhorrent and incompatible across browsers.
As soon as you standardize one thing, then the big boys are on to the next big thing. You still have a myriad ways to generate web content, all of which should shield the developer from most of the madness. Standards are good for taking a snapshot of the state of the art at a point in time, allowing developers to say "I support this version" and browsers to guarantee they will render standardized versions correctly. I expect every browser on the market today to correctly render all standardized versions of HTML.
Even worse, there are jurisdictions where it effectively means "property of the state".
Citation required...
People have no appreciation for the amount of power it takes to run a fully armed and operational battle station.
My goal is to discourage copyrights extending that length of time. Only if one really thought the content was worth many billions would one choose to extend it that long. And society would get reimbursed for the loss to the public domain.
Copyright terms should not be limited to fixed terms. First 14 year term is free + one time unlimited extension costing $50 * (1.7^years). Paid up front after year 14. No further extensions. Indexed to inflation.
That's not entirely in the public domain. I release stuff under many licenses, as well as putting them in the public domain. I usually have a very clear idea of what I choose to do and why I do it. And my views have certainly evolved in the past 14 years since that statement was initially attached to that website. Besides, people have made (and continue to make) fair use of code and images published on that site.
Ah, I see. You are too myopic to see the myriad alternatives. if you can only see a world of "intellectual property" then the free exchange of ideas may have no meaning to you. People who want to use the code in "intellectual property" may have a problem. The rest of us do not.
Do I want to go back to those days? Absolutely. Having that music in the public domain is part of cultural wealth of the United States. The copyright of performances of white artists playing music put in the public domain by black musicians and songwriters did not remove that music from the public domain. We are all wealthier together for the gift those artists gave us. Disney does the same thing with Mother Goose, Bros Grimm, HCA, etc. Those works are all still in the public domain. You are free to copy them and adapt the original stories.
Were there inequities? Sure. But I would argue that the we are paying a much heavier cost today. Besides, the music industry has found new and improved ways to rape and pillage the artists they purport to represent. The poor and uneducated will always be at a disadvantage. No one can argue that the IP regime we have today is a just system. Might still makes right. Whoever can afford the most lawyers wins.
We now have a place to easily and instantly publish ideas which provides permanent proof of what is in the public domain. Let's use it.
Because if the code is public domain, then you can modify it in any conceivable way and the original author(s) lose all ability to control not only use (which is the point of selecting the BSD license) but content, such as statements that "this code is public domain."
Who cares?!? Copying the code and removing the statement "this code is in the public domain" does not remove the code from the public domain.
Not at all. The number of copyrighted works would plummet to acceptable levels (with the value of ideas being added to the public domain returning to normal, healthy levels), rather than the copyright pandemic we are currently experiencing. The only thing deserving of copyright protection are those things that the creator deems valuable enough to seek copyright protection. And then we could do interesting things like exponentially scale the cost of registration based on the duration the author wishes to maintain their monopoly on the work.
Personally, this is why I feel that the recent invention of the "automatic copyright" grant is an epic fail. By default all published works should be in the public domain. Only those that are explicitly marked by the author with a copyright and a license should be protected.