It's kind of like the "Zero tolerance policies" in the school system. Parents scream and yell about the violence in schools, the school system "gets tough," innocent students are persecuted and the real bullies get off.
There is a very simple logical reason why physical things can be owned but information can't: you can only own something that exists and information doesn't exist.
To be sure, a DVD exists and can be owned. But the information is only *represented* on that disc. It doesn't actually "exist".
I thought so too at first. But in a post somewhere up above, someone posted the following Reuters headline:
Scientists Sue to Publish Piracy Paper By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A team of academics asked a federal court on Wednesday for permission to publicly reveal how they cracked an anti-piracy technology backed by the music industry.
You *almost* see the problem. The problems we have are not because the government is not structured properly. Our problems come as a result of our immoral society. No amount of government intervention is going to make a difference at this point.
Think about speed limit laws. So many people spurn them that it would take an enormous amount of resources to enforce. And think of what it would be like to live under a system that *did* have enough resources to enforce things that were not considered to be immoral by a majority. Greed is certainly not considered to be immoral by most people.
A moral government would not protect the poor from the rich or vice versa. A moral government would punish all evil regardless of the who, where, when, or why. This is something almost no one will accept.
You want to change things? Forget the government--change the people directly because it is your only hope.
You're correct, of course. But even if the government tried to do something to fix this, they'd likely end up persecuting innocent small businesses and letting the guilty mega corporations off. Just look at the examples we've seen of "zero tolerance" in schools. The bullies still do what they've always done and 2nd graders get suspended for pointing a chicken finger at someone. This is the way of government: identify the problem, craft a completely screwed up solution, problem solved!
I think it's frickin' awesome. But then, I'm weird.
Re:Some Free Software Advocates Show Their Colors
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 1
Unless of course you're not a professional artist but would still like to have a decent tool for image editing.
Re:As OS X gathers momentum...
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps, or maybe the opposite will happen, rather, the opposite is already happening; previously non-mac apps corrupting the mac UI.
Heh. This is what is supposed to happen. Remember that MOSX is *not* the Mac OS. It's OPENSTEP/Mach 5. The Carbon thing is just a kludge to make the transition easier. Hopefully, they'll be able to ween developers away from the Mac API for the much more elegant Cocoa.
Then there will be a glut of Objective C developers and GNUstep can finally rule the world. Muahahaha!
Re:GIMP on Mac won't be mainstream.
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 1
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is no such thing as an "Aqua application". You would use the portable Cocoa frameworks to write the application and then compile it on MOSX. Or other operating systems with GNUstep.
I would say that the GIMP needs to evolve a NATIVE Aqua version
There is no such thing as "writing an application for Aqua". Aqua is just a realtime rendering engine.
or even a Cocoa version.
There ya go. Remember, Cocoa (the two main high-level frameworks) is an elegant and portable (and there's a GNU implementation) API. Aqua is a separate drawing engine.
I guess I've seen what you're talking about but never really chalked that up to trying to "push" the people he was interviewing. I assumed that he's trying to keep the pace somewhat. I hate interviewers that just drag on and on without getting anywhere.
What strikes me is that I can never figure out what "side" he's on. Is he a leftist? Could he be conservative or moderate? It's so easy to tell with some people but I can't figure out which way his wind blows. I don't know, maybe that's bad, but I think it's kind of refreshing.
As others have noted, it's primarily a culture thing. In the US, covering someone's face is the same as saying that they're not worthy to be considered human beings. Those accused of serious crimes often have their faces covered, for example. The face (and especially the eyes) is the window on the soul. Covering someone's face is like saying, "You have no soul." Which, if you'll read some history, is the argument used to justify slavery here. It was said that it wasn't a problem to enslave Africans--they weren't really human because they didn't have souls.
What you've said is dead on. However, I'm hopeful that an injection of NeXT badassery into Apple will change things somewhat. I *do* wish they'd kept the old NeXTSTEP GUI, though. It was so slick. Aqua is like watching really bad cartoons.
Personally, I refuse to install it because it's spyware. They install all kinds of advertisement and data gathering crap. Plus, it's proprietary. Oh, and you rarely can ever just download the audio. Considering that: 1) it often skips for me; and 2) if I want to listen again I have to waste more bandwidth, I prefer just downloading the damn thing. Hey, maybe that's just me, though.
Here's something that should really scare the entertainment industry: I haven't seen a movie in years because I haven't heard of even one movie that I thought was interesting enough to spend my time watching. Forget losing profit to digital distribution; how about losing profit to people who don't want to watch at all?
Slashdot Mirror
It's kind of like the "Zero tolerance policies" in the school system. Parents scream and yell about the violence in schools, the school system "gets tough," innocent students are persecuted and the real bullies get off.
As soon as they adopt the Application Kit and Foundation APIs and write an InterfaceBuilder clone, then we will.
There is a very simple logical reason why physical things can be owned but information can't: you can only own something that exists and information doesn't exist.
To be sure, a DVD exists and can be owned. But the information is only *represented* on that disc. It doesn't actually "exist".
I thought so too at first. But in a post somewhere up above, someone posted the following Reuters headline:
Scientists Sue to Publish Piracy Paper
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A team of academics asked a federal court on Wednesday for permission to publicly reveal how they cracked an anti-piracy technology backed by the music industry.
Scary.
That we *can* donate money to uphold the Constitution.
You *almost* see the problem. The problems we have are not because the government is not structured properly. Our problems come as a result of our immoral society. No amount of government intervention is going to make a difference at this point.
Think about speed limit laws. So many people spurn them that it would take an enormous amount of resources to enforce. And think of what it would be like to live under a system that *did* have enough resources to enforce things that were not considered to be immoral by a majority. Greed is certainly not considered to be immoral by most people.
A moral government would not protect the poor from the rich or vice versa. A moral government would punish all evil regardless of the who, where, when, or why. This is something almost no one will accept.
You want to change things? Forget the government--change the people directly because it is your only hope.
Are you sure? Maybe you're thinking of a different Headline News than the one I know.
You're correct, of course. But even if the government tried to do something to fix this, they'd likely end up persecuting innocent small businesses and letting the guilty mega corporations off. Just look at the examples we've seen of "zero tolerance" in schools. The bullies still do what they've always done and 2nd graders get suspended for pointing a chicken finger at someone. This is the way of government: identify the problem, craft a completely screwed up solution, problem solved!
I think it's frickin' awesome. But then, I'm weird.
Unless of course you're not a professional artist but would still like to have a decent tool for image editing.
Heh. This is what is supposed to happen. Remember that MOSX is *not* the Mac OS. It's OPENSTEP/Mach 5. The Carbon thing is just a kludge to make the transition easier. Hopefully, they'll be able to ween developers away from the Mac API for the much more elegant Cocoa.
Then there will be a glut of Objective C developers and GNUstep can finally rule the world. Muahahaha!
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there is no such thing as an "Aqua application". You would use the portable Cocoa frameworks to write the application and then compile it on MOSX. Or other operating systems with GNUstep.
There is no such thing as "writing an application for Aqua". Aqua is just a realtime rendering engine.
or even a Cocoa version.
There ya go. Remember, Cocoa (the two main high-level frameworks) is an elegant and portable (and there's a GNU implementation) API. Aqua is a separate drawing engine.
...It hasn't actually been rewritten for Cocoa. Damn.
What strikes me is that I can never figure out what "side" he's on. Is he a leftist? Could he be conservative or moderate? It's so easy to tell with some people but I can't figure out which way his wind blows. I don't know, maybe that's bad, but I think it's kind of refreshing.
As others have noted, it's primarily a culture thing. In the US, covering someone's face is the same as saying that they're not worthy to be considered human beings. Those accused of serious crimes often have their faces covered, for example. The face (and especially the eyes) is the window on the soul. Covering someone's face is like saying, "You have no soul." Which, if you'll read some history, is the argument used to justify slavery here. It was said that it wasn't a problem to enslave Africans--they weren't really human because they didn't have souls.
Not unless you're a slave.
Besides, US companies have done this before...ever heard of the IBM Songbook?
What you've said is dead on. However, I'm hopeful that an injection of NeXT badassery into Apple will change things somewhat. I *do* wish they'd kept the old NeXTSTEP GUI, though. It was so slick. Aqua is like watching really bad cartoons.
That's strange. It always seemed to *me* that CR was very good at not involving his own opinions.
Personally, I refuse to install it because it's spyware. They install all kinds of advertisement and data gathering crap. Plus, it's proprietary. Oh, and you rarely can ever just download the audio. Considering that: 1) it often skips for me; and 2) if I want to listen again I have to waste more bandwidth, I prefer just downloading the damn thing. Hey, maybe that's just me, though.
You're correct, of course. However, at least with MP3 you don't have to download the proprietary spyware that is RealPlayer.
The AltiVec is primarily intended for graphics and audio processing. It's analogous to the Motorola 56k in the original NeXT machines.
Here's something that should really scare the entertainment industry: I haven't seen a movie in years because I haven't heard of even one movie that I thought was interesting enough to spend my time watching. Forget losing profit to digital distribution; how about losing profit to people who don't want to watch at all?
The real problem is that the concept of "intellectual property" is illogical and is a recent distortion of Article 1 Section 8.