Would you prefer if Google could use other people's innovations without compensating them?
Yes. I am an innovator. To build something truly useful, I must build upon the work of at least twelve others. If I have to pay royalties to them all, there's no way the royalties I collect will ever cover it. But I don't do it for the money. I do it because I am an innovator. I will innovate if I am compensate. I will innovate if I am not compensated. I will innovate even if I have to pay for the privilege of using my own brain. Google has demonstrated that they are (to some extent) of the same stock as me, and I think we'd all make more progress if we could pursue our passion to innovate without fear. If those who only innovate for money abandoned the game, that's okay with me--they are lousy innovators anyway.
I'm 36. I grew up on BASIC. Now I prefer C++. Two days ago someone asked me to write a web-app in PHP. I had never used it before, but I said "no problem". About 500 Google searches later, I'm a PHP expert and I'm just putting the finishing touches on my web-app. If you can't learn any more, you're not a programmer any more.
Like immunizations, there are risks on both sides, and only the rational side will cite both and then leave people to make an informed decision. Ranting exclusively about only one side is frankly obnoxious and unhelpful to anyone.
I call BS. Yeah, I know that prior art isn't the problem they're trying to solve with this new first-to-file rule. I know they say these new rules won't prevent patents from being invalidated. And I'm sure that these rules will be applied precisely for the intended purpose--after all, surely no one would ever try to abuse the patent system for monetary gain without actually contributing to science or the useful arts. But IRL, they're calling it "first-to-file", and the only assurance we have that prior art will still be relevant are the assurances of people who are trying to push the new rule through. I smell disingenuity.
Am I the only one who read this to mean that Apple had suddenly come to their senses about DRM? I was so excited! Alas, these are not jail-broken phones. They remain firmly behind the iron bars of Apple telling you what you are and are not allowed to do with the hardware you bought, even though the carrier is no longer involved to require it.
AV is like installing a house-fly chasing robot. It's big and often gets in the way, but it keeps the fly population in your house small. On proprietary platforms, AV is critical because you cannot close the windows through which they enter. On open platforms, it's a stupid idea. Just close the stupid hole! Why would anyone put up with AV? It's as annoying as what it protects you from, and the days when it was a good thing have passed.
Bitcoin is based on a fallacy that they are valuable because they are scarce
They are valuable because they have several desirable properties. Scarcity is one of these properties, but you have forgotten several others. They are easy to exchange. They are difficult to track. They do not depend on a centralized server or organization. There is definitely demand for these properties, and so far, BitCoins are the only thing supplying them. That sounds like "value" to me.
I am not saying they will continue to go up in value. The market could be flooded with competitors at any moment since they whole thing is open source. I'm just saying that it is supplying something that real people really want.
Since the summary is somewhat...lacking, here's my attempt to translate it. (Disclaimer: I am not a neuroscientist, and I really only skimmed it anyway.)
"We studied the olfactory system of locusts, and found that all of the smell information seems to pass through a single neuron with a lot of incoming connections. This single neuron does not send outgoing signals in spikes as most other neurons do, but instead releases a chemical that suppresses other neurons. It uses this method to sort-of "average" all of the incoming signals together. Also, this system involves a feedback loop. We think that this whole arrangement is set up to generate sparse-codes, which is our favorite way to reduce information down to a small number of dimensional values. We hope that mammals use similar systems, and that this might eventually help lead to an understanding of how brains reduce large amounts of information into small concepts."
Downloaders are not the only ones "getting something for nothing". Content creators are granted rights far beyond those granted by nature to control copies of their works even after they distribute them. All of the laws and government-operated judicial system necessary to make this work are provided at the expense of tax-payers. In exchange for these expensive services, and for the people respecting their "rights", the content belongs to the public after a limited time...except that those lyin' cheatin' thieves have stolen all the value from the rightful owners by lobbying to redefine "limited time" to extend so long that the public never gets anything worth value. Well, as a tax-paying citizen, I'm tired of being ripped off. I want all that content that rightfully belongs to the public domain! That's why we must fight the RIAA--they are exactly what they call us--pirates and thieves.
It's simple. If they have had a true change of heart, they will stop trying to sue competitors for using Java, and we should welcome them as a new ally. If they are just trying to distract us from making noise about that, then they will continue making token concessions in insignificant areas without ever backing down where it counts. There is no need to be cynical about this token concession--all will be revealed soon enough.
I don't expect this to happen, but it seems to me that it would be a brilliant move for Microsoft to pick this up and run with it. They wouldn't have to worry about those patent issues (obviously), and it might be a simple way for them to stay relevant in a world where Android eats their lunch. Won't happen--would require them to eat too much pride--but it would have been a good idea.
Mod parent A/C up. This whole discussion is chock-full of people whining about how standing up for rights *might* cost them something. Of course it might cost you something--we're talking about freedom here! Come on, people, have the self-respect to sacrifice one-tenth of what your ancestors sacrificed so that you could have freedom.
Exactly. Until now, Google was one of the few companies that had not climbed into bed with media. Look what that did to Sony. First it will be, "Subscribe now for premium quality search results!". Next, we'll get, "We work hard to protect you from unsafe unfiltered search results!" Pretty soon it will be, "We need a tax on the Internet and several unfair laws to subsidize our dying business model. The Internet is just too important to fail!"
Then let them knock on your door and ask you for the WEP key...
No. Who are you to tell me how to do it? If this is a free nation, I'll do it however I want. If I want to shine their shoes as they use my Internet connection, I'll do that too. It's none of your business how I choose to do it.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale
Indeed, this should be a cautionary tale: obtain better evidence before you make an arrest. Surely there is some kind of penalty in our well-designed system for such sloppiness on the part of law-enforcement. Surely our freedoms have built-in protections. Surely we do not need to respond to attempts by law-enforcement to try to scare us into using encryption if we don't want to...right?
Yes, and larceny *is* murder. Tax evasion *is* vandalism. And failing to return library books on time *is* spouse abuse. If it's bad, it *is* the same thing and should be described with exactly the same word. All this excessive specif-ism is depriving us of the ability to dole out punishments that don't fit the crime, and is degrading the very fiber of our moral society!
I will use it in ways that even I cannot now foresee. The reason general-purpose computers are so useful is because they can be used in ways that were not foreseen by the manufacturer. Please stop trying to determine how I will use my equipment. Just make it powerful and stop trying to lock me down to a particular usage scenario.
It's actually written with two Chinese characters. (If you have the right fonts installed, it's . If you don't, they won't appear). The literal translation is "dragon chip". (It sounds cool in Chinese because it is pronounced identically with dragon heart. "Heart of dragon inside" sounds way cooler than "Intel inside".) There are multiple different systems for Romanizing chinese characters, but in HanYu PinYin, which is now accepted as the most standard, and is taught throughout China, it would be lóngxn. I'm not sure why the person who made that Wikipedia page went with a much less common form of Romanization to spell it. I would like to believe the chip-makers themselves made this page, but somehow I doubt it since they are based in BeiJing, and would be familiar with Han Yu Pin Yin, and not some other form.
Once, that term used to imply that you were a person who would never permit tyranny to rule over you unchecked. I feel a certain sense of sadness, as though something great has been lost, to see that it no longer carries that implication in any way any more.
They were quite deliberate to point out that they used a phone with the antenna in the mouthpiece, so that it would be separated from sources of heat, and that the the increased consumption of glucose was measured in regions near the antenna, and not so much near sources of heat. They claimed this was a significant point because the FDA's current position is that heat is entirely responsible for all reactions that have yet been measured. (Disclaimer: I'm just repeating stuff from articles about it--I didn't read the actual study.)
To "manage" means to keep something from getting out of control. Hence, "rights management" clearly implies that they are preventing you from freely exercising your rights. "restrictions management" makes it sound like they are working to stop evil corporations from being too restrictive--which is exactly the opposite of what DRM does.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you prefer if Google could use other people's innovations without compensating them?
Yes. I am an innovator. To build something truly useful, I must build upon the work of at least twelve others. If I have to pay royalties to them all, there's no way the royalties I collect will ever cover it. But I don't do it for the money. I do it because I am an innovator. I will innovate if I am compensate. I will innovate if I am not compensated. I will innovate even if I have to pay for the privilege of using my own brain. Google has demonstrated that they are (to some extent) of the same stock as me, and I think we'd all make more progress if we could pursue our passion to innovate without fear. If those who only innovate for money abandoned the game, that's okay with me--they are lousy innovators anyway.
I'm 36. I grew up on BASIC. Now I prefer C++. Two days ago someone asked me to write a web-app in PHP. I had never used it before, but I said "no problem". About 500 Google searches later, I'm a PHP expert and I'm just putting the finishing touches on my web-app. If you can't learn any more, you're not a programmer any more.
we are working... to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services
Article title:
Cameron threatens to shut down UK social networks
Wahoo! just 60? more years until science and the useful arts will benefit from this tremendous innovation as it finally falls into the public domain.
Geeks suing a lawyer--Great idea! And let's hire a bunch of lawyers to write software and configure firewalls!
Like immunizations, there are risks on both sides, and only the rational side will cite both and then leave people to make an informed decision. Ranting exclusively about only one side is frankly obnoxious and unhelpful to anyone.
I call BS. Yeah, I know that prior art isn't the problem they're trying to solve with this new first-to-file rule. I know they say these new rules won't prevent patents from being invalidated. And I'm sure that these rules will be applied precisely for the intended purpose--after all, surely no one would ever try to abuse the patent system for monetary gain without actually contributing to science or the useful arts. But IRL, they're calling it "first-to-file", and the only assurance we have that prior art will still be relevant are the assurances of people who are trying to push the new rule through. I smell disingenuity.
Am I the only one who read this to mean that Apple had suddenly come to their senses about DRM? I was so excited! Alas, these are not jail-broken phones. They remain firmly behind the iron bars of Apple telling you what you are and are not allowed to do with the hardware you bought, even though the carrier is no longer involved to require it.
AV is like installing a house-fly chasing robot. It's big and often gets in the way, but it keeps the fly population in your house small. On proprietary platforms, AV is critical because you cannot close the windows through which they enter. On open platforms, it's a stupid idea. Just close the stupid hole! Why would anyone put up with AV? It's as annoying as what it protects you from, and the days when it was a good thing have passed.
Bitcoin is based on a fallacy that they are valuable because they are scarce
They are valuable because they have several desirable properties. Scarcity is one of these properties, but you have forgotten several others. They are easy to exchange. They are difficult to track. They do not depend on a centralized server or organization. There is definitely demand for these properties, and so far, BitCoins are the only thing supplying them. That sounds like "value" to me.
I am not saying they will continue to go up in value. The market could be flooded with competitors at any moment since they whole thing is open source. I'm just saying that it is supplying something that real people really want.
Since the summary is somewhat ...lacking, here's my attempt to translate it. (Disclaimer: I am not a neuroscientist, and I really only skimmed it anyway.)
"We studied the olfactory system of locusts, and found that all of the smell information seems to pass through a single neuron with a lot of incoming connections. This single neuron does not send outgoing signals in spikes as most other neurons do, but instead releases a chemical that suppresses other neurons. It uses this method to sort-of "average" all of the incoming signals together. Also, this system involves a feedback loop. We think that this whole arrangement is set up to generate sparse-codes, which is our favorite way to reduce information down to a small number of dimensional values. We hope that mammals use similar systems, and that this might eventually help lead to an understanding of how brains reduce large amounts of information into small concepts."
Downloaders are not the only ones "getting something for nothing". Content creators are granted rights far beyond those granted by nature to control copies of their works even after they distribute them. All of the laws and government-operated judicial system necessary to make this work are provided at the expense of tax-payers. In exchange for these expensive services, and for the people respecting their "rights", the content belongs to the public after a limited time ...except that those lyin' cheatin' thieves have stolen all the value from the rightful owners by lobbying to redefine "limited time" to extend so long that the public never gets anything worth value. Well, as a tax-paying citizen, I'm tired of being ripped off. I want all that content that rightfully belongs to the public domain! That's why we must fight the RIAA--they are exactly what they call us--pirates and thieves.
Why tunnel? Wouldn't a big siphon be easier to build?
It's simple. If they have had a true change of heart, they will stop trying to sue competitors for using Java, and we should welcome them as a new ally. If they are just trying to distract us from making noise about that, then they will continue making token concessions in insignificant areas without ever backing down where it counts. There is no need to be cynical about this token concession--all will be revealed soon enough.
I don't expect this to happen, but it seems to me that it would be a brilliant move for Microsoft to pick this up and run with it. They wouldn't have to worry about those patent issues (obviously), and it might be a simple way for them to stay relevant in a world where Android eats their lunch. Won't happen--would require them to eat too much pride--but it would have been a good idea.
Mod parent A/C up. This whole discussion is chock-full of people whining about how standing up for rights *might* cost them something. Of course it might cost you something--we're talking about freedom here! Come on, people, have the self-respect to sacrifice one-tenth of what your ancestors sacrificed so that you could have freedom.
Exactly. Until now, Google was one of the few companies that had not climbed into bed with media. Look what that did to Sony. First it will be, "Subscribe now for premium quality search results!". Next, we'll get, "We work hard to protect you from unsafe unfiltered search results!" Pretty soon it will be, "We need a tax on the Internet and several unfair laws to subsidize our dying business model. The Internet is just too important to fail!"
Then let them knock on your door and ask you for the WEP key...
No. Who are you to tell me how to do it? If this is a free nation, I'll do it however I want. If I want to shine their shoes as they use my Internet connection, I'll do that too. It's none of your business how I choose to do it.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale
Indeed, this should be a cautionary tale: obtain better evidence before you make an arrest. Surely there is some kind of penalty in our well-designed system for such sloppiness on the part of law-enforcement. Surely our freedoms have built-in protections. Surely we do not need to respond to attempts by law-enforcement to try to scare us into using encryption if we don't want to ...right?
Yes, and larceny *is* murder. Tax evasion *is* vandalism. And failing to return library books on time *is* spouse abuse. If it's bad, it *is* the same thing and should be described with exactly the same word. All this excessive specif-ism is depriving us of the ability to dole out punishments that don't fit the crime, and is degrading the very fiber of our moral society!
I will use it in ways that even I cannot now foresee. The reason general-purpose computers are so useful is because they can be used in ways that were not foreseen by the manufacturer. Please stop trying to determine how I will use my equipment. Just make it powerful and stop trying to lock me down to a particular usage scenario.
It's actually written with two Chinese characters. (If you have the right fonts installed, it's . If you don't, they won't appear). The literal translation is "dragon chip". (It sounds cool in Chinese because it is pronounced identically with dragon heart. "Heart of dragon inside" sounds way cooler than "Intel inside".) There are multiple different systems for Romanizing chinese characters, but in HanYu PinYin, which is now accepted as the most standard, and is taught throughout China, it would be lóngxn. I'm not sure why the person who made that Wikipedia page went with a much less common form of Romanization to spell it. I would like to believe the chip-makers themselves made this page, but somehow I doubt it since they are based in BeiJing, and would be familiar with Han Yu Pin Yin, and not some other form.
As an American...
Once, that term used to imply that you were a person who would never permit tyranny to rule over you unchecked. I feel a certain sense of sadness, as though something great has been lost, to see that it no longer carries that implication in any way any more.
They were quite deliberate to point out that they used a phone with the antenna in the mouthpiece, so that it would be separated from sources of heat, and that the the increased consumption of glucose was measured in regions near the antenna, and not so much near sources of heat. They claimed this was a significant point because the FDA's current position is that heat is entirely responsible for all reactions that have yet been measured. (Disclaimer: I'm just repeating stuff from articles about it--I didn't read the actual study.)
To "manage" means to keep something from getting out of control. Hence, "rights management" clearly implies that they are preventing you from freely exercising your rights. "restrictions management" makes it sound like they are working to stop evil corporations from being too restrictive--which is exactly the opposite of what DRM does.