DNA is base 4, so does that make the AMD "human being simulator chip" a bit easier to build? Hmm, I'll go and file that with the US patents office, they seem an easy touch at the mo..:-)
That very openness provides protection, however. For
instance when the offending code is identified (and it will be
identified eventually), there will be absolutely no problem
determining who contributed that code. Contrary to SCO's
assertions, the person that submitted proprietary code is
responsible for damages, not everyone who ever used said code,
forever and ever, amen.
I hope you are right.. One weakness of the SCO case is that
the code would probably have been sitting in Linux for some time - and they only
now suddenly jump up and start taking notice. Even if they do
have some claim on some real code in Linux, I would guess that
would be contributrary negligence on their part.
However even if SCO falls on its backside, my main point was -
why not press for some formal government protection for open
source code? Official bodies are starting to use open code
systems for reasons of security, so there must be some
sympathetic ears in the corridors of power..
The X-prize is about developing systems for sub-orbital
joy rides, a market which disappeared with the.bombs. Wake me up
when someone comes up with a competition to get something into
orbit..
In the longer term the technology developed in pursuit of the
X-Prize could deliver exactly that, at a genuinly cheap price..
There is a basic problem with open source software - great though the idea is in principle - there is nothing to stop someone sneaking in some (C) code, then later standing up (maybe under a different persona) and sueing everyone for breach of copyright. Ok, thats not *exactly* whats happened here - but you get my drift.
Perhaps some sort of special legal protection is needed - in the same way charities enjoy a special status..
Code declared to be "public" must be posted to special government sanctioned database. Anyone who thinks and can prove breach of (C) can apply for their code to be removed from the database, but will not be able to sue for copyright breach for anyone using it for the duration it is posted (plus some nominal period of, say, 2 months or something like that)
Ok but the cost to the public purse is only
$10 million - presuming similar prizes are
funded by the government in the future.
Burt Rutan's sees all sorts of ways of making his craft (see http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ ) pay its way. And I dont know how much he has spent on development, so its hard to make that judgement..
Its an old point, but worth repeating:- I dont believe NASA/ESA will ever deliver really cheap space transport - they are good at some things, but they are just not the right people to do it.. The X-Prize has yielded a whole raft of promising new vehicles, all for a measley $10 million. (remember the the shuttle is $600 million per launch)
Just set up "competitions" for certain objectives and let entreprenuers figure out the rest..
Or they could check out this
footprint - about half way down, slightly to the right.. If
fact it reminds me of a day at the seaside, now wheres my suncream..
Maybe a traditional corperation does not care about long term research, but what I am suggesting is that NASA and the ESA are making an incredibly bad job out of doing the work now. The Space shuttle is an expensive joke - an ineffective waste of money, not to mention life.
I just think that after the most recent shuttle failure, it is time to re-think how things are structured, and how the money is distributed. I suggested the idea that certain "prizes" could be offered for certain objectives. Maybe there should be a free market for launch systems, with many smaller scientific teams recieving rather more modest grants to develop probes for specific goals. You compare the cost/structure of the small privately funded Beagle-2 mars lander project to the NASA rovers.. ($50 mil vs $500 mil??)
Allow a free market to operate, and watch the entreprenuers develop cheap delivery systems at a fraction of current costs.
Its funny that Americans, who are champions of open-market systems in other areas, have a blindness when it comes to NASA..
There is a real argument for stopping most of the ongong spending in NASA/ESA and re-assessing how and why we want to go into space. An independant project to put 2 men into space & claim the "X-prize" - a mere $10 million - may be near to fruition - see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2956103. stm - if that is sucessful, it makes NASAs bill of $500 million per shuttle launch seem bad value. In fact some amateur rocket builders have been getting near-orbit performance for under $100,000.. And since when have nationalised agencies like NASA been good at commercial exploitation anyway? What would the motor industry be if the government built cars? (think british leyland, the lada, skoda, trebant, etc..) Why not just offer a series of "prizes" (together with some sensible level of regulation) and let private firms innovate and fight it out?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it an AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA battery then?
balloon attempt on hold..
The first shuttle launches *did* have that technology - only 3 pilots with an option to eject/get out. It was dropped from subsequent missions..
Or just give guys like these 1/100th of the money..
Space plane? Tsk, we in the UK have this vastly superior modern technology for lifts in VLEO..
What about this Malloc routine I've just written?
Do I get a prize?
Darl McBride
If you have paid for the space, and they put a block on, sue them..
but can you just *imagine* a beowulf cluster of these? Oh you already did.. /* If it wasn't for C we would be using OBOL, BASI and PASAL. */
It will be the 21st century..
(I want to die quietly in my sleep like my Grandad - not screaming in terror like the passengers on his plane..)
DNA is base 4, so does that make the AMD "human being simulator chip" a bit easier to build? :-)
Hmm, I'll go and file that with the US patents office, they seem an easy touch at the mo..
That very openness provides protection, however. For instance when the offending code is identified (and it will be identified eventually), there will be absolutely no problem determining who contributed that code. Contrary to SCO's assertions, the person that submitted proprietary code is responsible for damages, not everyone who ever used said code, forever and ever, amen.
I hope you are right.. One weakness of the SCO case is that the code would probably have been sitting in Linux for some time - and they only now suddenly jump up and start taking notice. Even if they do have some claim on some real code in Linux, I would guess that would be contributrary negligence on their part.
However even if SCO falls on its backside, my main point was - why not press for some formal government protection for open source code? Official bodies are starting to use open code systems for reasons of security, so there must be some sympathetic ears in the corridors of power..
Allow me to nitpick a little. Why is sneaking code into Free Software a lot different than closed propriatory software?
It isnt, in legal terms. Its just that a violation is a *lot* easier to prove in open code..
Well, call me a master of the obvious, but sometimes that is not such a bad thing.. :o)
The X-prize is about developing systems for sub-orbital joy rides, a market which disappeared with the .bombs. Wake me up
when someone comes up with a competition to get something into
orbit..
In the longer term the technology developed in pursuit of the X-Prize could deliver exactly that, at a genuinly cheap price..
There is a basic problem with open source
software - great though the idea is in
principle - there is nothing to stop someone
sneaking in some (C) code, then later standing
up (maybe under a different persona) and sueing
everyone for breach of copyright.
Ok, thats not *exactly* whats happened
here - but you get my drift.
Perhaps some sort of special legal protection
is needed - in the same way charities enjoy
a special status..
Code declared to be "public" must be posted
to special government sanctioned database.
Anyone who thinks and can prove breach of
(C) can apply for their code to be removed from
the database, but will not be able to sue for
copyright breach for anyone using it for the
duration it is posted (plus some nominal period
of, say, 2 months or something like that)
Just my 2 cents..
but I for one wouldn't rely on a for-profit venture in a situation where safety and accountability are critical (ie: space exploration).
But you do - what about aircraft manufacturers?
Ok but the cost to the public purse is only $10 million - presuming similar prizes are funded by the government in the future. Burt Rutan's sees all sorts of ways of making his craft (see http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ ) pay its way. And I dont know how much he has spent on development, so its hard to make that judgement..
Yes the ryan-air spaceport for Mars is actually on Phobos. An oxygen mask/tank for the the flight costs extra too..
If your eyesight is good you can see this..
Its an old point, but worth repeating:-
I dont believe NASA/ESA will ever deliver
really cheap space transport - they are
good at some things, but they are just
not the right people to do it..
The X-Prize has yielded a whole raft of
promising new vehicles, all for a measley
$10 million. (remember the the shuttle is
$600 million per launch)
Just set up "competitions" for certain
objectives and let entreprenuers figure
out the rest..
Simple solution, get Ryan-air to do it!
Then we will get:
Moon - from 15.00 return
Mars - from 25.00 return
Sun - from 35.00 (one way)
etc..
Spaceport taxes not included.
Of course if you want to travel at
a time *you* want the cost is:
Moon - from 2.5 billion return
etc..
Whatever you do don't mention SCO. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.. Basil.
Or they could check out this footprint - about half way down, slightly to the right.. If fact it reminds me of a day at the seaside, now wheres my suncream..
Maybe a traditional corperation does not care about long term research, but what I am suggesting is that NASA and the ESA are making an incredibly bad job out of doing the work now. The Space shuttle is an expensive joke - an ineffective waste of money, not to mention life. I just think that after the most recent shuttle failure, it is time to re-think how things are structured, and how the money is distributed. I suggested the idea that certain "prizes" could be offered for certain objectives. Maybe there should be a free market for launch systems, with many smaller scientific teams recieving rather more modest grants to develop probes for specific goals. You compare the cost/structure of the small privately funded Beagle-2 mars lander project to the NASA rovers.. ($50 mil vs $500 mil??) Allow a free market to operate, and watch the entreprenuers develop cheap delivery systems at a fraction of current costs. Its funny that Americans, who are champions of open-market systems in other areas, have a blindness when it comes to NASA..
There is a real argument for stopping most of the ongong spending in NASA/ESA and re-assessing how and why we want to go into space. An independant project to put 2 men into space & claim the "X-prize" - a mere $10 million - may be near to fruition - see:. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2956103
- if that is sucessful, it makes NASAs bill of $500 million per shuttle launch seem bad value. In fact some amateur rocket builders have been getting near-orbit performance for under $100,000..
And since when have nationalised agencies like NASA been good at commercial exploitation anyway? What would the motor industry be if the government built cars? (think british leyland, the lada, skoda, trebant, etc..) Why not just offer a series of "prizes" (together with some sensible level of regulation) and let private firms innovate and fight it out?