I think the problem is that a little marketing is needed, in a good (is that possible?) way. Say for a chemical spill, and you have the best case scenario in that it is self contained, not leaking into the ground water, etc. That spill will be as toxic now, as next week, as next month, as next year, as one hundred years from now. If it's leaking allover the place, well then you're just spreading the toxins around, hopefully (as in the best case) it will dilute enough in the long run that everyone get's a little bit of cancer, etc, rather than having community cancer clusters, animal and baby deformities, sterility, etc. In contrast with with nuclear waste, the problem solves and cleans itself, becoming exponentially _less_ dangerous each half-life.
On a side note, it's perhaps time to answer the age old question: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?". Cameco (CCJ)
is the biggest uranium producer in the world, and it's stock is just coming off it's 52 week lows so it maybe a good time to get in if this 'nuclear revival' is taking place, or perhaps not, who knows.:)
'Sorry, I've deleted that clip' of $president-leader saying something wrong/foolish/a lie. Now they just have to make sure all hardware complies with their 'accidental' delete requests and they'll be set.
Although instead of Microsoft good people should patent all kinds of stupid/evil business ideas to prevent others from inflicting them upon the public.
RedHat did this idea actually, by patenting a DRM mechanism and vowing not to use it.
I don't see any FUD anywhere, at least not the D[oubt]. The FSF foundation is: "reviewing Novell Inc.'s right to sell new versions of Linux operating system software".
The FSF is doing a review of the matter to see if they can stop Novell (stop why? read below). Perhaps they can find a legal reason to stop Novell and perhaps they won't, but that the review is taking place isn't in [FU]Doubt.
What also isn't in doubt is that people (esp. the FSF, enough to do a review) are not impressed with Novell making back room deals with Microsoft in an apparent effort to circumvent the GNU GPL in playing patent agreement games.
The uncertainty is not really an issue, the FSF is making it clear that the will either restrict Novell now in using the FSF's software (if the review is successful), or they will be restricted (from using the latest FSF versions) later when the GNU GPLv3 comes out and the FSF moves all of its software over th the license which will prevent patent games.
As for Fear, I'd be afraid too if I was Novell going down the path it's on. They can remove any fear if they choose to back out of their Microsoft deal - the choice is theirs. What isn't their choice is to make use others' works without, at the very least, deference to the license it's under.
"What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite."
Thankfully some people are paying directly for FOSS software development. I remember reading a story recently of someone who worked for Novell that was approached and paid to add a minor, but necessary, feature to some software program (GPL).
There is nothing wrong with getting paid to work on FOSS, the software jobs of the future will be this kind of work for hire, sorting though the vast universe of FOSS applications to custom build an application, etc.
"People can complain all they want, but it doesn't make it so. It [Microsoft] just happens to be an easy target for anti competition, anti capitalist folks."
Make no mistake: Monopoly isn't a feature of capitalism, it's a failure. Free markets do not work without government to do things like: provide courts to enforce contracts etc, and intervene when a market failure occurs, such as with monopoly.
As well, monopoly is a tax on the benefit and welfare of society. You can look it up, dead-weight-loss isn't also call the excess burden of (taxiation/*monopoly*/subsidy/etc.) for nothing. Bill's ill begotten riches come on your and my backs and for him to get credit for spending them is simply insult on top of injury.
"If the FSF goes beserkoid either making a completely impossible GPLv4 or decide to release it as public domain, you'll probably have no recourse."
Uhh...
If the FSF does go 'beserkoid' people can and will continue to use the license the code is currently under, what someone else decides to license it under will make no difference. For example, with MySQL or Qt does it make any difference that they sell closed licenses? Not really since people still have the option of using the GPL version.
Plus the FSF can only go 'beserkoid' once, with everyone forking the code releasing their work only under the previous license. I simply do not see the risk nor any particularly large consequences should it happen even given the remote possibility.
Very interesting and agreeable post, except for this:
"Going back to Ethics 101, this is (however subtly) acting against the
best interest of society, and therefore unethical."
Since when is utilitarianism
necessarily == to ethical behaviour? Utilitarianism is but one of many ethical
doctrines (and personally, I find Kant's Metaphysics
of Morals more compelling). For example, I'm sure
it is in the 'best interest of society' to murder someone if their body
holds the cure to cancer but it is quite far from cut and dry if anyone
has the right to murder in the name that net benefit cure to
society (net benefit because not everyone necessarily benefits from that murder
esp. the person in question;) ).
"Seems to me people are flocking to be 'a tenant in a system where someone else retains ultimate control'."
Just because there are not free alternatives for everything, yet, or that some people will choose to give up their freedoms for extra features does NOT mean that the FSF fighting for freedom or trying to inform people isn't a worthy cause.
So let the other people 'flock' towards systems where others are in control, if they do not put a premium on their freedom then that is their choice - the best anyone can do is try to inform people of the short comings of non-free software, and the alternatives, which is exactly what BadVista is doing.
I was thinking about the same thing but instead of police, or as you say the public, I was thinking of computers doing the watching. If they recognize certain patterns (e.g. fighting, or bikes on the side walk) it would respond instead.
As you say it isn't that a public place is being watched but it's by who.
Travoltus: "I already told my HR department 3 months ago to never even think about this bullshit tactic" "b) It makes it impossible for people with poor credit histories to recover from it; therefore, those who are economically down in the dumps, are forced to remain there."
Is it your, and your company's, responsibility to try and make poor people's lives happier? What about the responsibility to the owners, shareholders, to make money? Business is not a charity, if you want to do charity then volunteer or support government programs that do this kind of work.
Also, you seem to have a view of poor people as 'down in the dumps' victims who are not competent enough to realize that it's bad to spend willy nilly on credit. If indeed poor are as stupid as you make them out to be then I think the school system is not doing its job teaching the concept of savings and interest payments.
"you want it for free and expect that the market should not be burdend by license or royalty?"
If you are a full free-market capitalist then indeed you wouldn't want government intervening in the market with enforcement of patents and copyright and licenses with royalties, or intervening in general.
I guess since you enjoy government intervention you might want to think about that before you start calling other people 'communist's.
"MS' sheer size, marketshare along with its diverse involments"
Microsoft has at least two achilles heels: Windows and Office. This is so since these are the only two money makers for Microsoft, the rest of their 'diverse involments' lose money hand over fist. If Microsoft were to be harmed in either of these two markets then it would be a severe blow.
I'd guess that the first of these weaknesses that will be exploited is in the Office market since it is easier to switch to another suite, i.e. OpenOffice, then it is to switch operating systems. Switching over to other non-Microsoft products paves the way towards helping people rid themselves of Windows as well.
Simple, have standards that people/distributions can *choose* to follow. Projects such as Linux Standard Base (and others, list / talk about them if you know of them) allows distributions to have a common point and common environment.
I think GNU/Linux will learn from the fragmentation of Unix. Part of the reason why Unix didn't develop a standard was that each closed version was competing against eachother for customers. With Linux there is no to-the-death competition since the work is shared and co-operative.
"The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me."
How else but being extreme do you want him to be when it comes to freedom?
There seems to be some sort of political correctness occuring with regards to RMS, telling him to quite down. 'no no, don't shout too loud for your freedom, it's ok, shhhhh...'
Bullshit on people who not only *not* standing up for their freedom and rights, but also want other people to not fight for theirs either.
Since OpenDocument is xml based, couldn't you also use CVS / SVN with that as well? I've been wanting to research / make a CVS or SVN database with OpenDocument where you can review the changes made to the OpenDocument files.
"Take every instance of "theft" and replace it with "copyright infringement" and the arguments will all be the same."
Um, no. Depriving someone of their property seems very immoral, copying information not so much. In fact I argue that using the government force to prop up the business model that is scarcity of information is the behaviour that is immoral - unless you (anyone) have an arguement justifying the morality of using that force.
"Copyright infringement is still illegal, whether it's theft or not."
Yes, an since when is legality equilivant to morality? Since you bring legality up, I remind everyone that the copyright act could be repealed tommrow. Suddenly what was immoral yesterday would be totally ok today?
"The whole 'copyright infringement isn't theft' thing seems to be a crutch of an argument people fall on to ignore the issue."
Not so much as a crutch as they are very different things. As I said above, I think the concept of copyright (i.e. using government to enforce a scarsity of information business model) is itself of dubious morality when applied to individuals (which is a recent phenomenon). I have near nil hesitation over copying information, i have large hestitation over taking or depriving someone of their property - that is the difference and it is huge.
"You honestly think that if I produce something, through honest means and hard work, you should be able to copy and sell it without my permission?"
Do you think that if you say something, then write it down, you are magically granted some sort of moral authority to prevent me from looking at, and transmitting that idea (or its representation) to other people?
I'd like to know the moral justification as to how people think they can impose, though force and sanction of government, their false scarcity of information business model on me. It is but for government and a simple act of law that copyright exists, and we can (will and should?) dispose of copyright easily.
As an aside, if you don't like people 'taking' your ideas then perhaps you should consider not telling other people. If you want to make money by using government to force people to buy your ideas then you may want to consider another line of work (or another business model) in this one click digial copy age.
"You don't seem to understand the definition of the word "censored.""
Well, let us look it up then, from M-W.com:
Main Entry: censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Nope, didn't see anything about only governments can censor, did you? Perhaps you should have taken your own advice and looked up the 'definition' yourself.
"By your logic, any time I change my mind about how to word a sentence, I'm censoring myself."
Actually, what I suggest is that the verb censor be used (m-w.com):
Main Entry: censor Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Therefore, any anytime you self supress anything you think is objectionable, often out of fear, then you are self-censoring.
Anytime a company "suppresses or delete[s] anything considered objectionable" they are censoring.
I'm not sure how you're using this verb, but censorship encompasses things beyond just what governments do.
"that he has plans to basically give away EVERYTHING by the time he's gone."
"I mean really. See beyond your jealousy and hatred of IE's "broken HTML" and other assorted technical-philosophical gripes for one minute."
You do realize is wealth is due to monopoly power which means it was effectively stolen from society? Monopolies and the laws against them (to break them up and limit them etc.) exist for a reason.
If Gates didn't get all that money it would be in the pockets of consumers who would likely have donated a portion of it to chariety, the damage from monopoly would not have happened and I suspect there would have been *ALOT* more innovation in computer / computer operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the problem is that a little marketing is needed, in a good (is that possible?) way. Say for a chemical spill, and you have the best case scenario in that it is self contained, not leaking into the ground water, etc. That spill will be as toxic now, as next week, as next month, as next year, as one hundred years from now. If it's leaking allover the place, well then you're just spreading the toxins around, hopefully (as in the best case) it will dilute enough in the long run that everyone get's a little bit of cancer, etc, rather than having community cancer clusters, animal and baby deformities, sterility, etc. In contrast with with nuclear waste, the problem solves and cleans itself, becoming exponentially _less_ dangerous each half-life.
:)
On a side note, it's perhaps time to answer the age old question: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?". Cameco (CCJ) is the biggest uranium producer in the world, and it's stock is just coming off it's 52 week lows so it maybe a good time to get in if this 'nuclear revival' is taking place, or perhaps not, who knows.
"TIVO: Sorry, I've deleted that show"
It can get even worse than that though.
'Sorry, I've deleted that clip' of $president-leader saying something wrong/foolish/a lie. Now they just have to make sure all hardware complies with their 'accidental' delete requests and they'll be set.
Although instead of Microsoft good people should patent all kinds of stupid/evil business ideas to prevent others from inflicting them upon the public.
RedHat did this idea actually, by patenting a DRM mechanism and vowing not to use it.
"Ahhh, another AC spreading FUD..."
I don't see any FUD anywhere, at least not the D[oubt]. The FSF foundation is: "reviewing Novell Inc.'s right to sell new versions of Linux operating system software".
The FSF is doing a review of the matter to see if they can stop Novell (stop why? read below). Perhaps they can find a legal reason to stop Novell and perhaps they won't, but that the review is taking place isn't in [FU]Doubt.
What also isn't in doubt is that people (esp. the FSF, enough to do a review) are not impressed with Novell making back room deals with Microsoft in an apparent effort to circumvent the GNU GPL in playing patent agreement games.
The uncertainty is not really an issue, the FSF is making it clear that the will either restrict Novell now in using the FSF's software (if the review is successful), or they will be restricted (from using the latest FSF versions) later when the GNU GPLv3 comes out and the FSF moves all of its software over th the license which will prevent patent games.
As for Fear, I'd be afraid too if I was Novell going down the path it's on. They can remove any fear if they choose to back out of their Microsoft deal - the choice is theirs. What isn't their choice is to make use others' works without, at the very least, deference to the license it's under.
"What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite."
Thankfully some people are paying directly for FOSS software development. I remember reading a story recently of someone who worked for Novell that was approached and paid to add a minor, but necessary, feature to some software program (GPL).
There is nothing wrong with getting paid to work on FOSS, the software jobs of the future will be this kind of work for hire, sorting though the vast universe of FOSS applications to custom build an application, etc.
"People can complain all they want, but it doesn't make it so. It [Microsoft] just happens to be an easy target for anti competition, anti capitalist folks."
Make no mistake: Monopoly isn't a feature of capitalism, it's a failure. Free markets do not work without government to do things like: provide courts to enforce contracts etc, and intervene when a market failure occurs, such as with monopoly.
As well, monopoly is a tax on the benefit and welfare of society. You can look it up, dead-weight-loss isn't also call the excess burden of (taxiation/*monopoly*/subsidy/etc.) for nothing. Bill's ill begotten riches come on your and my backs and for him to get credit for spending them is simply insult on top of injury.
"If the FSF goes beserkoid either making a completely impossible GPLv4 or decide to release it as public domain, you'll probably have no recourse."
Uhh...
If the FSF does go 'beserkoid' people can and will continue to use the license the code is currently under, what someone else decides to license it under will make no difference. For example, with MySQL or Qt does it make any difference that they sell closed licenses? Not really since people still have the option of using the GPL version.
Plus the FSF can only go 'beserkoid' once, with everyone forking the code releasing their work only under the previous license. I simply do not see the risk nor any particularly large consequences should it happen even given the remote possibility.
Very interesting and agreeable post, except for this:
;) ).
"Going back to Ethics 101, this is (however subtly) acting against the best interest of society, and therefore unethical."
Since when is utilitarianism necessarily == to ethical behaviour? Utilitarianism is but one of many ethical doctrines (and personally, I find Kant's Metaphysics of Morals more compelling). For example, I'm sure it is in the 'best interest of society' to murder someone if their body holds the cure to cancer but it is quite far from cut and dry if anyone has the right to murder in the name that net benefit cure to society (net benefit because not everyone necessarily benefits from that murder esp. the person in question
"Seems to me people are flocking to be 'a tenant in a system where someone else retains ultimate control'."
Just because there are not free alternatives for everything, yet, or that some people will choose to give up their freedoms for extra features does NOT mean that the FSF fighting for freedom or trying to inform people isn't a worthy cause.
So let the other people 'flock' towards systems where others are in control, if they do not put a premium on their freedom then that is their choice - the best anyone can do is try to inform people of the short comings of non-free software, and the alternatives, which is exactly what BadVista is doing.
The solution is for countries that are paying off North Korea with bribe food, oil etc. to stop now and let the regiem crumble.
How could it be unprovable?
Just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it's unprovable.
Godel's incompleteness theorems
I was thinking about the same thing but instead of police, or as you say the public, I was thinking of computers doing the watching. If they recognize certain patterns (e.g. fighting, or bikes on the side walk) it would respond instead.
As you say it isn't that a public place is being watched but it's by who.
Travoltus:
"I already told my HR department 3 months ago to never even think about this bullshit tactic"
"b) It makes it impossible for people with poor credit histories to recover from it; therefore, those who are economically down in the dumps, are forced to remain there."
Is it your, and your company's, responsibility to try and make poor people's lives happier? What about the responsibility to the owners, shareholders, to make money? Business is not a charity, if you want to do charity then volunteer or support government programs that do this kind of work.
Also, you seem to have a view of poor people as 'down in the dumps' victims who are not competent enough to realize that it's bad to spend willy nilly on credit. If indeed poor are as stupid as you make them out to be then I think the school system is not doing its job teaching the concept of savings and interest payments.
"you want it for free and expect that the market should not be burdend by license or royalty?"
If you are a full free-market capitalist then indeed you wouldn't want government intervening in the market with enforcement of patents and copyright and licenses with royalties, or intervening in general.
I guess since you enjoy government intervention you might want to think about that before you start calling other people 'communist's.
"MS' sheer size, marketshare along with its diverse involments"
Microsoft has at least two achilles heels: Windows and Office. This is so since these are the only two money makers for Microsoft, the rest of their 'diverse involments' lose money hand over fist. If Microsoft were to be harmed in either of these two markets then it would be a severe blow.
I'd guess that the first of these weaknesses that will be exploited is in the Office market since it is easier to switch to another suite, i.e. OpenOffice, then it is to switch operating systems. Switching over to other non-Microsoft products paves the way towards helping people rid themselves of Windows as well.
Simple, have standards that people/distributions can *choose* to follow.
Projects such as Linux Standard
Base (and others, list / talk about them if you know of them) allows
distributions to have a common point and common environment.
I think GNU/Linux will learn from the fragmentation of Unix. Part of the
reason why Unix didn't develop a standard was that each closed version was
competing against eachother for customers. With Linux there is no to-the-death
competition since the work is shared and co-operative.
"The idea that you have to match extremity with extremity in politics finds no home with me."
How else but being extreme do you want him to be when it comes to freedom?
There seems to be some sort of political correctness occuring with regards to RMS, telling him to quite down. 'no no, don't shout too loud for your freedom, it's ok, shhhhh...'
Bullshit on people who not only *not* standing up for their freedom and rights, but also want other people to not fight for theirs either.
"The simple answer"
Since OpenDocument is xml based, couldn't you also use CVS / SVN with that as well? I've been wanting to research / make a CVS or SVN database with OpenDocument where you can review the changes made to the OpenDocument files.
"Take every instance of "theft" and replace it with "copyright infringement" and the arguments will all be the same."
Um, no. Depriving someone of their property seems very immoral, copying information not so much. In fact I argue that using the government force to prop up the business model that is scarcity of information is the behaviour that is immoral - unless you (anyone) have an arguement justifying the morality of using that force.
"Copyright infringement is still illegal, whether it's theft or not."
Yes, an since when is legality equilivant to morality? Since you bring legality up, I remind everyone that the copyright act could be repealed tommrow. Suddenly what was immoral yesterday would be totally ok today?
"The whole 'copyright infringement isn't theft' thing seems to be a crutch of an argument people fall on to ignore the issue."
Not so much as a crutch as they are very different things. As I said above, I think the concept of copyright (i.e. using government to enforce a scarsity of information business model) is itself of dubious morality when applied to individuals (which is a recent phenomenon). I have near nil hesitation over copying information, i have large hestitation over taking or depriving someone of their property - that is the difference and it is huge.
"You honestly think that if I produce something, through honest means and hard work, you should be able to copy and sell it without my permission?"
Do you think that if you say something, then write it down, you are magically granted some sort of moral authority to prevent me from looking at, and transmitting that idea (or its representation) to other people?
I'd like to know the moral justification as to how people think they can impose, though force and sanction of government, their false scarcity of information business model on me. It is but for government and a simple act of law that copyright exists, and we can (will and should?) dispose of copyright easily.
As an aside, if you don't like people 'taking' your ideas then perhaps you should consider not telling other people. If you want to make money by using government to force people to buy your ideas then you may want to consider another line of work (or another business model) in this one click digial copy age.
"You don't seem to understand the definition of the word "censored.""
/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Well, let us look it up then, from M-W.com:
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Nope, didn't see anything about only governments can censor, did you? Perhaps you should have taken your own advice and looked up the 'definition' yourself.
"By your logic, any time I change my mind about how to word a sentence, I'm censoring myself."
/'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
Actually, what I suggest is that the verb censor be used (m-w.com):
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): censored; censoring
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Therefore, any anytime you self supress anything you think is objectionable, often out of fear, then you are self-censoring.
Anytime a company "suppresses or delete[s] anything considered objectionable" they are censoring.
I'm not sure how you're using this verb, but censorship encompasses things beyond just what governments do.
"Censorship is when there is a legal requirement to change something."
Have you ever heard of self-censorship? Your definition of censorship seems to be dangerously narrow.
"I believe the market is actually free."
The market is suppose to be free, but when monopoly exists within a market it isn't.
"that he has plans to basically give away EVERYTHING by the time he's gone."
"I mean really. See beyond your jealousy and hatred of IE's "broken HTML" and other assorted technical-philosophical gripes for one minute."
You do realize is wealth is due to monopoly power which means it was effectively stolen from society? Monopolies and the laws against them (to break them up and limit them etc.) exist for a reason.
If Gates didn't get all that money it would be in the pockets of consumers who would likely have donated a portion of it to chariety, the damage from monopoly would not have happened and I suspect there would have been *ALOT* more innovation in computer / computer operating systems.