"Contrary to popular belief the world is NOT overpopulated. Infact I am sure it could handle 10 or 20 billion.
SO TRUE! We dont need to stabilize population at all! There are more possible, practical, and desireable solutions:
1. simply eliminate farming and switch to land-conserving, factory food production based on soon-to-be-developed "animal-less meat growth tanks" and underground bacteria production tanks.
2. move people off of the coast and force them to live and work in vertical "Tower Cities" throughout the continent.
3. Use some soon-to-be-developed technology to prevent the effectiveness of increased disease vectors resulting from crowded living.
4. switch power production for our tower-cities to nuclear. This, combined with the lack of vehichles in tower cities could reduce the five tonnes of carbon dioxide gas produced by each american each year to one tonne! Assuming we only need to halve CO2 production for sustainability, we could practically DOUBLE the population!
5. since the global population IS, in fact doubling every 35-50 years, we also need to take advantage of soon-to-be-developed "Atmosphere Conditioners" to preserve and restore nature.
5.b. - although there IS a back-up plan for this... we could simply maintain the tower cities and let the outside atmoshere change. We can already survive in space suits - we can *definitely* survive on a changing Earth if someone needs to leave the tower. Nature will adapt and still be restored. It could even be New And Improved!
6. Of course, our plentiful nuclear energy will allow us to desalinate as much ocean water as we need and synthesize materials rather than continue using forest lumber and lake water.
7. simply stop developing nations from adopting the wasteful technologies that we *currently* use. The oil-producing countries are the biggest potential problem, so we need to take control of them first. There are countless options for preventing the rest of the world from "Developing". I think we should use a mix of military, political, and economic power.
8. Since it may not be easy to keep the rest of the world down permanently, we will simply take advantage of nearly-as-soon-to-be-developed technologies that allows mining, manufacturing, and construction technologies to operate on 10% of the materials, landmass, and energy that they currently use. THEN the other 90% of the world can have our Utopian "Tower Cities" too!
THERE! EASY! No more deterioration of nature AND we all get to live in a developed world with refrigeration, TV, and clothing made from soft and durable "nonexistafibres".
9.... Actually - I don't know what we need nature for - wilderness areas are SO 19th century! Even before we get the technology for step 8, we could just rip down what we need to increase tower city and goods production to western levels and let the developing world eat cake too!
Things like population awareness are stupid - we have LOTS of room to allow for the 4 to 8-fold increase in polulation expected in the next 100years.
Sure, my proposals only allow for a 10-fold increase in population, but what kind of idiot tries to plan 150 years in the future? Im sure that with future technologies, we won't need or want Food, Clothing, Material goods, or Housing at all! And if we need to stop growing at that time, we'll just instantly stop!
If you over-populationists need proof - check out:
http://www.novaspace.com/POSTERS/PHOTO/Nam-nite.ht ml
Just look at all of the land we haven't used up yet! Sure, this is one on the least densely populated habitable areas of the world, but don't forget the Tower cities and the reduced mining, & eliminated farming, water, & foresting systems we will use!
In the interests of staying objective, you could check out what some wacko "Scientists" say:
http://www.absw.org.uk/Briefings/Land_resources.ht m
No matter how you cut it - this is a tricky front-end to make...
An interesting approach to this would be to have the front end generate Tiles procedurally. This could allow you to zoom into the tile to get it to render it's statistics iconographically - it's the transitions that would be a serious puzzle. The other problem with this approach would be the slippery slope of extensibility - where do you stop? Possible design obsticles aside, it takes challenges like these to get me excited about coding.
I Love games like this, but I've not tries FreeCiv - I can hardly wait to install it!
Still, indie music is probably less strong than it was before Napster came along...
As a musician, a friend of many professional indie (and a couple major label) musicians, and as a music industry observer - I have to say that that is an absolutely bizarre statement!
The indie scene has exploded in the last decade (Relative to where it was pre-internet-era). I'm not saying it is because of the internet - but I'd definitely not rule that out. I think that the mainstream media has been forced to acknowledge the indie scene because of the internet; even if it was not the internet that drove the growth of indie music, it was likely the catalyst.
And in case in needs repeating for those who've never heard of "RIAA"; THAT is what all the hubub is about. The major labels are in attack mode because the rise of indie music and cheap distribution threatens thier control over radio play and mass markets. Since internet promotion, distribution, and sharing has boosted indie growth, trying to mimimize their effectiveness helps the Big Labels keep control overe what is popular.
This all brings us back to the movie parallel that you originally drew... I think that you may not be considering the fact that the reason big-budgets like "Miss Congeniality 2" are "mainstream" and popular is because a few large corporations have enough control over the "Distribution method" that they can simply choose (on our behalf) that it is a higher priority for us than films like "Primer". The reason so few films like "Primer" get popular, is because there is a "Distribution Method" (Read MPAA) working their ass off to prevent such things from happening.
Yes - I DO think that as more and more people realise how this small group is working to stifle our culture for their own profit, they will consider more movie (& TV) sources "just because they prefer the Distribution Method". (Just like they have begun doing for music)
I don't know what kind of DRM will be on this, but it could conceivably be marketed as a "Rental" product.
At traditional rental prices (99 cents per movie), I could see people going for this like crazy. The DRM cripples the file after 2 days, and no-one wants to keep their precious memory stick filled up with a movie they've already seen anyway.
It all depends on the DRM. Does the PSP Hardware/OS have a "Trusted Computing" style DRM built in? Does it have it's own video codec? Are the Memory sticks formatted to a PSP-proprietary format? I've seen lots of discussions about the Discs, but none on whether the Sticks can be shared with other memory stick devices.
I agree that they are not likely to expect actual movie sales to succeed... either that's not what they are planning (that is, they are planning rentals instead), or they are planning to set up a straw dog to "prove" that digital sales are an invitation to piracy and thus they work towards stigmatizing digital media possession entirely. This seems equally likely to me given Sony's history of using their consumer electronics division to sabotage grassroots technological development and defent their Media Content business. (For example: "VCD format supported" = "VCD Crippled to discourage adoption")
I don't think they are stupid. They probably know what they are doing - It's either a Rental plan ($1), or a Sabotage plan ($intentionally unreasonable).
I, for one, will immediately register a complaint with Amazon for naming their new feature after an existing project.
Also, haven't countless Content Management Systems , Groupware, and Portals had personal log features forever? I know my previous employers intra-net has has this feature for years. (PHP Nuke must for sure!)
http://www.opensourcecms.com/ After looking at all the Web site management systems out there, you can't tell me that this is not already a well known feature. Some people call it "Sticky notes", "Personal notepad" "Frequent actions" etc...
How does a person point out Prior art to a patent examiner?
What a bizarre world this has become - where "Ownership" of words spoken is not only discussed, but the topic is even taken seriously!
Where did this all begin? Is this purely a result of corruption in the US legislation system? Or maybe it was borne of the university tradition of referencing other academics?
Maybe it's just because I am from an older generation, but I don't know if I'll ever get my head around this new category of "Property".
"...Also, this was an anonymous survey so it'd be interesting to really see who fell where (pop stars vs local bands)."
If they only interviewed a couple thousand musicians, then statistically, there should be No pop musicians in the sample... OK, maybe one.
The point being, the artists represented by RIAA are not representative of the greater population of (under-represented) musicians out there. Monopolies in cultural industries destroy culture.
"... what about education? Most people today only ever go to school because they want to make the most of their short life. They want to graduate, get a good job, live a good life.
If you have 984 years to go, would you really be interested in pursuing higher education?..."
Maybe I'm different, but I don't think your description is typical of the people I know. I think that the reason only a small portion of people get higher educations is because they think that 6 or 8 or 10 years of school is too much of thier life. Go to school for 12 years to be a Psychiatrist, then only work for 30 years and retire?! Forget it! I'll just work a help desk. OR if I do go through all that schoolling (SP?) - dammit, I'm gonna work for as long as I live - even if I do have enough to retire when I'm 45.
This sure is borne out where I live - doctors & lawyers often don't retire until thier health forces them to. If I thought I could live to 1000 I would not hesitate to invest 10 years in school - hell I wouldn't mind doing 100yrs - the ratio of "Foundational Education" to "Practical Development and Use" of that education would still be much better than it is now!
Yeah - I can't see how we wouldn't have a more educated society if we lived that long... however, population growth is the darker side of this coin.....
they might just vote to raise property taxes until everyone who owns property is forced back to work
In Canada, (and I suspect the USA too) this is already how it works.
The capial cost of a home merely increases the cost of the home for the first 15 years or so, but over your lifespan, the biggest cost of a home is property tax. I think it is getting common for people to find other sources of income to replace work to keep the use of thier homes... like selling thier homes on retirement and then leasing the home back till death (I think this is called a "Reverse Mortgage" but I am not sure).
The point is: this is only sustainable because actuarial science tells us that people typically die soon after retireing.
As they say, only diamonds and taxes are forever. Property is a perk for working - not something you can get once and then keep without strings attached.
I did a search and could not find any open source Design or Software in this category. Does Anyone know of one?
If not , Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in the Electronics / driver writing / coding arena will be inspired enough from seeing this to Start something up on Sourceforge or something.
If it is controlled through wireless connection - (802.11, USB, I don't know, Fill me in...)would the lag prohibit doing the balance layer of the control from the desktop?
I would LOVE to see a grassroots version of this that could support Soccer, Sumo, environment mapping, and other popular-ish projects as Dev Forks of a common Hardware configuration.
It seems like people aren't able to easily build on the efforts of others in these areas as it sits right now. Seems to me that lots of this type of work could be software only - if there was a hardware platform that had a track record of experimentation / modification / development by diverse people.
Someone fill in the gaps for me - what am I missing in this little experimenters fantasy?
Your comment contradicted itself, and may require some clarification.
You said that suing is how this Should be dealt with, but that obliterating 'fair use' is not.
Don't forget that court precidents are the dominant tool used to erode and re-define Fair Use. It is also practically the only tool used to decide what is legal and what isn't in the first place. For example - From what I've read so far - Copywrite was Originally meant to prevent you from distributing someone elses work For Profit - precident over the decades has re-defined it to mean "prevents you from distributing somebody elses work, plain and simple". Maybe that understanding is wrong - but the point about Suing serving the same function as Lobbying still stands.
BTW - Intuitively, Copywrite applies to industry - it should not restrict the technological development of what I can do with personal, hands on, skills. This is why average people complicate things with "Fair Use". We interpret law inuitively - not algorhythmically. And Laws must recognize that - you can't hold rules against someone if they are in-comprehensible to an average, intelligent person. You should Not even be able to hold complicated laws against below average people - If a law can not be understood by at least 75% of the population , something is inherently wrong. This is one of the biggest reasons why the rest of the world sees the USA legal system as corrupt - because only Lawyers are seen as qualified to understand Law, bizzare, when I stop and think about it!
From a different point of view, If no one practices civil dis-obedience when un-just Laws are being abused - then society adapts and the people begin to see that abuse as acceptable and, eventually, even justified.
And finally, a question - IANAL (Obviously) , so can someone tell me if the word "Legal" is defined by convention or by a specific state change? Many people say that something is not law until court outcomes can be generally predicted by most lawyers. Others say it is "Law" as soon as there is a precident - even if the precident is likely to be overturned. How do these terms work? Legal? Illegal? Even in the case of Statute law- Is something Still "illegal" if precident dis-agrees with statute? And is there no provision to overturn "laws" that are in violation of common social values?
I agree with your sentiments, but am dismayed to find other people who would prefer to show caution hurting that very position.
Of course, it is possible that you are out there pretending to endorse a cautious approach in order to sabotage those arguments from within - but the only thing I can usefully do is take your words at face value and try to contribute productively.
SO - 1. Please remember that virtually ALL arguments that contain personal insults are, at best, disregarded. More often, they are taken as evidence to the contrary.
2. If the presentation of your opinion contains no analysis, and only blanket generalizations... ie. using words like "Genetically Modified" as if it was specific and impact-distinguishable from other types of crop breeding... then readers assume that you are expressing an opinion formed without research and revert to conclusion #1.
I strongly agree that we need to place tight restrictions on what can be field-grown and field-tested. And like you, I also hope that or Peer Review and Regulatory experts can muster the expertise to ensure that risk is maintained at, or below, the same level it's been over recent centuries.
I was on a Canadian national panel for 6 months examining GM foods 6 years ago. At the time, I became comfortable that the Canadian Analysis and Restriction system was adequate, but needing some changes for future security. But as we are so close to the USA, we also examined the FDA and associated systems there and were horrified at level of risk that is accepted and the influence of corporations on Decision makers.
That was 6 years ago , so I am no longer up to date on the concerns. Things change - I would be interested to hear anyone's more current take on the control systems now in place.
The dominant issue at the time (Globally) was Substantial Equivalence VS Safety. Obviously - you can not prove something to be safe. It can even be dubious to prove something Un-safe at times. Most of the governments who have addressed GM Food Safety have attemted to put in place a mechanism requiring new crops to be proven to be basically the same as existing crops. This is also exceedingly difficult since the list of things to be considered equivilent is incredibly long: No new proteins in the field, no new chemicals produced, amounts and combinations must be similar to historically proven crops, environmental interactions must be unchanged, IIRC, on the Japanese board there was even discussion on requiring proof that societal reaction to the crop must be shown to be equivalent.
I know that this principle must surely have become the core of the FDA system too, but I would apreciate some updates on the systems you use to accomplish this. State of the art from other countries would be appreciated too.
It would seem then, that you are referring to the loss of brand recognition in the switch to Fedora - and not any technical difference from RH9 nor any potential loss of contribution from RH.
If it is the poor branding that you are referring to in calling Fedora a litter box, then isn't that immenently within our power to influence as slashdot regulars?
And, again, as I've heard it, future changes to RHEL will mostly come from Fedora. So how is the opportunity to contribute to RHEL reduced with a more open community involvement (except that it would be more competitive)?
Wow, this is confusing for us non-kernel-developers!
Please explain why RH9 was the mother of all distros and Fedora is a "cat-shit-filled sandbox".
1. what are the things they took out - other than logos (and were they really allowed to do that?)
2. what are the "cat shits" that were added, and what makes it harder to get invoved with that addition process now that it is outside of RH?
3. is it the additional RH developers that are sabotaging Fedora - or did they lose someone?
This is not flamebait - as a non contributor, I really don't know what about fedora has changed (other than logo copyrights and exposure to the development cycle).
To someone like me, the RH Spin looks good - same people, working on virtually same project, more open to community involvement, continuing whithout the RH branding. Maybe I need to read more, but I got the impression that RHEL would be skimming the bulk of their upgrade revisions off of Fedora in the future, keeping the two fairly sync'd. That's where their developers are working after all. I haven't seen anything yet that implies that this is anything other that simply moving all RH user support to EL - and that impression does not jive at all with the parents comments - You are obviously angry for a reason; help us out. what am I missing?
The emphasis on "None" is highly inappropriate.
This is a discussion (albeit an abused one) not only of legalities, but of Moralities.
1) she may or may not have distributed files.
2) she may or may not have had a legal right to do so
3) To beat that dead horse one more time:
There are countless people here (apparently the vast majority) who believe she has the moral right to share stuff - including music.
So to conclude that the RIAA, the DCMA, or any law that does not have the support of the majority, is "in the right" is a little hasty - if you were to ask me.
I love my desktop/mandrake - I like using it to do my work; it allows me to adapt, build skill, contribute to this small community that/.'ers all belong to.
I want to add a handheld to my network, but need the bandwidth/range of 1xRTT.
Oops, I guess that part of my network will have to be windows.
My users at the office can not get thier apps for linux, so those clients will have to be windows. I want to work with those systems & people around me,... since they are windows and M$ has 95% MS, they define the standards and can afford to sabatage the 5% that my beloved desktop/mandrake belongs to.
Oops, I guess My desktop needs to be windows and my dual boot functionality will never be more than a hobby.
But wait... I'm the IT Director. I'm the SysAdmin too, I should be able to choose my system.
Oops, I guess that even though I have the resources to choose, maintain, even customize our internal system - I don't have the resources to do this in spite of a monopoly who is trying to prevent my system from communicating with the outside world. I'm too small to keep up interoperability development.
Oops, I guess I don't have linux as a choice.
Hmmm, it seems like in the Server World, M$ isn't able to sabatage standards as much - Oh yeah, I guess they don't have Market Share there!
Therefore...
Consolation Prize = I get to keep my Samba Server for a few more months.
Lesson Learned == Market Share = only hope for Linux to develop = long term survival.
Yes, Market Share counts, and without Desktop linux has already reached max market share (MS). There is a minimum market share threshold below which Linux is effectively blocked as a choice. You may have the resources to play with linux in your closed environment, but what about those of us who desparately want to participate at the same level as you, but don't have the resources. What about the important software development work that is simply not being done because the world is forced to "make do" with a poorly fitted windows solution when a pre-existing & custom refined OSS solution would be trivial.
Oops, I guess it would cost too much to integrate with the mandatory desktop OS.
I believe you sum up the Devil's Advocate position well. In fact these superficial comments are the only ones I've ever heard actually "defending" the RIAA. For the benefit of the hard-of-thinking, I'll quickly distill out the points you make through conspicuous absence of mention.
1. Yes, they always try to discount the underlying moral issues, but at the end of the day, people should not replace morals with law.
2. The highest moral at stake is the need to protect the human capacity to evolve. Continuing the drive towards shared experience is top priority.
3. Recording industry and Music industry are not the same, or even very closely connected. Mucisians have made livings for thousands of years. There was a brief period in history during which sound duplication & distribution could only be done by large corporations. This period did change the Music industry. Thankfully, that period is over.
(From here on out, its a discussion of corporate planning, not morals, so the last 2 points are sort of moot.)
4. The Recording industry reduces musician income - it does not defend it. (as a musician, I can vouch for this) It slightly increases the income of a statistically non-existent group of mucicians, dramatically increases (Creates, actually) the income of recording corporations, and seriously hinders regionalized development of musicians everywhere. The musicians who are super-rich would be super-rich without copywrite laws. It's good marketing and merchandising, not recording reproduction or distribution sales that build Musician wealth. Marketing and merchandising tools work in any medium - not just the recording industry. (This I also know from successful experience)
5. As implied above, People buy artist merchandise like t-shirts, biographies, videos, & CDs to possess, see, touch, and viscerally reference. (Yes, we've come full circle to the "Culture" topic, just like the parent post did) Making audio experience shareable will never eliminate that - and the experiment/debate as to whether it increases or decreases it is still out.
Other posts discuss other valid themes to this issue, but I think this re-phrases the themes you mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
"Contrary to popular belief the world is NOT overpopulated. Infact I am sure it could handle 10 or 20 billion.
SO TRUE! We dont need to stabilize population at all! There are more possible, practical, and desireable solutions:
1. simply eliminate farming and switch to land-conserving, factory food production based on soon-to-be-developed "animal-less meat growth tanks" and underground bacteria production tanks.
2. move people off of the coast and force them to live and work in vertical "Tower Cities" throughout the continent.
3. Use some soon-to-be-developed technology to prevent the effectiveness of increased disease vectors resulting from crowded living.
4. switch power production for our tower-cities to nuclear. This, combined with the lack of vehichles in tower cities could reduce the five tonnes of carbon dioxide gas produced by each american each year to one tonne! Assuming we only need to halve CO2 production for sustainability, we could practically DOUBLE the population!
5. since the global population IS, in fact doubling every 35-50 years, we also need to take advantage of soon-to-be-developed "Atmosphere Conditioners" to preserve and restore nature.
5.b. - although there IS a back-up plan for this... we could simply maintain the tower cities and let the outside atmoshere change. We can already survive in space suits - we can *definitely* survive on a changing Earth if someone needs to leave the tower. Nature will adapt and still be restored. It could even be New And Improved!
6. Of course, our plentiful nuclear energy will allow us to desalinate as much ocean water as we need and synthesize materials rather than continue using forest lumber and lake water.
7. simply stop developing nations from adopting the wasteful technologies that we *currently* use. The oil-producing countries are the biggest potential problem, so we need to take control of them first. There are countless options for preventing the rest of the world from "Developing". I think we should use a mix of military, political, and economic power.
8. Since it may not be easy to keep the rest of the world down permanently, we will simply take advantage of nearly-as-soon-to-be-developed technologies that allows mining, manufacturing, and construction technologies to operate on 10% of the materials, landmass, and energy that they currently use. THEN the other 90% of the world can have our Utopian "Tower Cities" too!
THERE! EASY! No more deterioration of nature AND we all get to live in a developed world with refrigeration, TV, and clothing made from soft and durable "nonexistafibres".
9. ... Actually - I don't know what we need nature for - wilderness areas are SO 19th century! Even before we get the technology for step 8, we could just rip down what we need to increase tower city and goods production to western levels and let the developing world eat cake too!
Things like population awareness are stupid - we have LOTS of room to allow for the 4 to 8-fold increase in polulation expected in the next 100years.
Sure, my proposals only allow for a 10-fold increase in population, but what kind of idiot tries to plan 150 years in the future? Im sure that with future technologies, we won't need or want Food, Clothing, Material goods, or Housing at all! And if we need to stop growing at that time, we'll just instantly stop!
If you over-populationists need proof - check out:
http://www.novaspace.com/POSTERS/PHOTO/Nam-nite.ht ml
Just look at all of the land we haven't used up yet! Sure, this is one on the least densely populated habitable areas of the world, but don't forget the Tower cities and the reduced mining, & eliminated farming, water, & foresting systems we will use!
In the interests of staying objective, you could check out what some wacko "Scientists" say:
http://www.absw.org.uk/Briefings/Land_resources.ht m
but they are WRONG - we can keep growing!
No matter how you cut it - this is a tricky front-end to make...
An interesting approach to this would be to have the front end generate Tiles procedurally. This could allow you to zoom into the tile to get it to render it's statistics iconographically - it's the transitions that would be a serious puzzle. The other problem with this approach would be the slippery slope of extensibility - where do you stop? Possible design obsticles aside, it takes challenges like these to get me excited about coding.
I Love games like this, but I've not tries FreeCiv - I can hardly wait to install it!
As a musician, a friend of many professional indie (and a couple major label) musicians, and as a music industry observer - I have to say that that is an absolutely bizarre statement!
The indie scene has exploded in the last decade (Relative to where it was pre-internet-era). I'm not saying it is because of the internet - but I'd definitely not rule that out. I think that the mainstream media has been forced to acknowledge the indie scene because of the internet; even if it was not the internet that drove the growth of indie music, it was likely the catalyst.
And in case in needs repeating for those who've never heard of "RIAA"; THAT is what all the hubub is about. The major labels are in attack mode because the rise of indie music and cheap distribution threatens thier control over radio play and mass markets. Since internet promotion, distribution, and sharing has boosted indie growth, trying to mimimize their effectiveness helps the Big Labels keep control overe what is popular.
This all brings us back to the movie parallel that you originally drew... I think that you may not be considering the fact that the reason big-budgets like "Miss Congeniality 2" are "mainstream" and popular is because a few large corporations have enough control over the "Distribution method" that they can simply choose (on our behalf) that it is a higher priority for us than films like "Primer". The reason so few films like "Primer" get popular, is because there is a "Distribution Method" (Read MPAA) working their ass off to prevent such things from happening.
Yes - I DO think that as more and more people realise how this small group is working to stifle our culture for their own profit, they will consider more movie (& TV) sources "just because they prefer the Distribution Method". (Just like they have begun doing for music)
I don't know what kind of DRM will be on this, but it could conceivably be marketed as a "Rental" product.
At traditional rental prices (99 cents per movie), I could see people going for this like crazy. The DRM cripples the file after 2 days, and no-one wants to keep their precious memory stick filled up with a movie they've already seen anyway.
It all depends on the DRM. Does the PSP Hardware/OS have a "Trusted Computing" style DRM built in? Does it have it's own video codec? Are the Memory sticks formatted to a PSP-proprietary format? I've seen lots of discussions about the Discs, but none on whether the Sticks can be shared with other memory stick devices.
I agree that they are not likely to expect actual movie sales to succeed... either that's not what they are planning (that is, they are planning rentals instead), or they are planning to set up a straw dog to "prove" that digital sales are an invitation to piracy and thus they work towards stigmatizing digital media possession entirely. This seems equally likely to me given Sony's history of using their consumer electronics division to sabotage grassroots technological development and defent their Media Content business. (For example: "VCD format supported" = "VCD Crippled to discourage adoption")
I don't think they are stupid. They probably know what they are doing - It's either a Rental plan ($1), or a Sabotage plan ($intentionally unreasonable).
I, for one, will immediately register a complaint with Amazon for naming their new feature after an existing project.
Also, haven't countless Content Management Systems , Groupware, and Portals had personal log features forever? I know my previous employers intra-net has has this feature for years. (PHP Nuke must for sure!)
http://www.opensourcecms.com/
After looking at all the Web site management systems out there, you can't tell me that this is not already a well known feature. Some people call it "Sticky notes", "Personal notepad" "Frequent actions" etc...
How does a person point out Prior art to a patent examiner?
Isn't defending a monopoly the same thing as attacking a competitor?
What a bizarre world this has become - where "Ownership" of words spoken is not only discussed, but the topic is even taken seriously!
Where did this all begin? Is this purely a result of corruption in the US legislation system? Or maybe it was borne of the university tradition of referencing other academics?
Maybe it's just because I am from an older generation, but I don't know if I'll ever get my head around this new category of "Property".
"...Also, this was an anonymous survey so it'd be interesting to really see who fell where (pop stars vs local bands)."
If they only interviewed a couple thousand musicians, then statistically, there should be No pop musicians in the sample... OK, maybe one.
The point being, the artists represented by RIAA are not representative of the greater population of (under-represented) musicians out there. Monopolies in cultural industries destroy culture.
"... what about education? Most people today only ever go to school because they want to make the most of their short life. They want to graduate, get a good job, live a good life. If you have 984 years to go, would you really be interested in pursuing higher education?..."
Maybe I'm different, but I don't think your description is typical of the people I know. I think that the reason only a small portion of people get higher educations is because they think that 6 or 8 or 10 years of school is too much of thier life. Go to school for 12 years to be a Psychiatrist, then only work for 30 years and retire?! Forget it! I'll just work a help desk. OR if I do go through all that schoolling (SP?) - dammit, I'm gonna work for as long as I live - even if I do have enough to retire when I'm 45.
This sure is borne out where I live - doctors & lawyers often don't retire until thier health forces them to. If I thought I could live to 1000 I would not hesitate to invest 10 years in school - hell I wouldn't mind doing 100yrs - the ratio of "Foundational Education" to "Practical Development and Use" of that education would still be much better than it is now!
Yeah - I can't see how we wouldn't have a more educated society if we lived that long... however, population growth is the darker side of this coin.....
they might just vote to raise property taxes until everyone who owns property is forced back to work
In Canada, (and I suspect the USA too) this is already how it works.
The capial cost of a home merely increases the cost of the home for the first 15 years or so, but over your lifespan, the biggest cost of a home is property tax. I think it is getting common for people to find other sources of income to replace work to keep the use of thier homes... like selling thier homes on retirement and then leasing the home back till death (I think this is called a "Reverse Mortgage" but I am not sure).
The point is: this is only sustainable because actuarial science tells us that people typically die soon after retireing.
As they say, only diamonds and taxes are forever. Property is a perk for working - not something you can get once and then keep without strings attached.I did a search and could not find any open source Design or Software in this category. Does Anyone know of one?
If not , Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in the Electronics / driver writing / coding arena will be inspired enough from seeing this to Start something up on Sourceforge or something.
If it is controlled through wireless connection - (802.11, USB, I don't know, Fill me in...)would the lag prohibit doing the balance layer of the control from the desktop?
I would LOVE to see a grassroots version of this that could support Soccer, Sumo, environment mapping, and other popular-ish projects as Dev Forks of a common Hardware configuration.
It seems like people aren't able to easily build on the efforts of others in these areas as it sits right now. Seems to me that lots of this type of work could be software only - if there was a hardware platform that had a track record of experimentation / modification / development by diverse people.
Someone fill in the gaps for me - what am I missing in this little experimenters fantasy?
Your comment contradicted itself, and may require some clarification.
You said that suing is how this Should be dealt with, but that obliterating 'fair use' is not.
Don't forget that court precidents are the dominant tool used to erode and re-define Fair Use. It is also practically the only tool used to decide what is legal and what isn't in the first place. For example - From what I've read so far - Copywrite was Originally meant to prevent you from distributing someone elses work For Profit - precident over the decades has re-defined it to mean "prevents you from distributing somebody elses work, plain and simple". Maybe that understanding is wrong - but the point about Suing serving the same function as Lobbying still stands.
BTW - Intuitively, Copywrite applies to industry - it should not restrict the technological development of what I can do with personal, hands on, skills. This is why average people complicate things with "Fair Use". We interpret law inuitively - not algorhythmically. And Laws must recognize that - you can't hold rules against someone if they are in-comprehensible to an average, intelligent person. You should Not even be able to hold complicated laws against below average people - If a law can not be understood by at least 75% of the population , something is inherently wrong. This is one of the biggest reasons why the rest of the world sees the USA legal system as corrupt - because only Lawyers are seen as qualified to understand Law, bizzare, when I stop and think about it!
From a different point of view, If no one practices civil dis-obedience when un-just Laws are being abused - then society adapts and the people begin to see that abuse as acceptable and, eventually, even justified.
And finally, a question - IANAL (Obviously) , so can someone tell me if the word "Legal" is defined by convention or by a specific state change? Many people say that something is not law until court outcomes can be generally predicted by most lawyers. Others say it is "Law" as soon as there is a precident - even if the precident is likely to be overturned. How do these terms work? Legal? Illegal? Even in the case of Statute law- Is something Still "illegal" if precident dis-agrees with statute? And is there no provision to overturn "laws" that are in violation of common social values?
I agree with your sentiments, but am dismayed to find other people who would prefer to show caution hurting that very position.
Of course, it is possible that you are out there pretending to endorse a cautious approach in order to sabotage those arguments from within - but the only thing I can usefully do is take your words at face value and try to contribute productively.
SO -
1. Please remember that virtually ALL arguments that contain personal insults are, at best, disregarded. More often, they are taken as evidence to the contrary.
2. If the presentation of your opinion contains no analysis, and only blanket generalizations... ie. using words like "Genetically Modified" as if it was specific and impact-distinguishable from other types of crop breeding... then readers assume that you are expressing an opinion formed without research and revert to conclusion #1.
I strongly agree that we need to place tight restrictions on what can be field-grown and field-tested. And like you, I also hope that or Peer Review and Regulatory experts can muster the expertise to ensure that risk is maintained at, or below, the same level it's been over recent centuries.
I was on a Canadian national panel for 6 months examining GM foods 6 years ago. At the time, I became comfortable that the Canadian Analysis and Restriction system was adequate, but needing some changes for future security. But as we are so close to the USA, we also examined the FDA and associated systems there and were horrified at level of risk that is accepted and the influence of corporations on Decision makers.
That was 6 years ago , so I am no longer up to date on the concerns. Things change - I would be interested to hear anyone's more current take on the control systems now in place.
The dominant issue at the time (Globally) was Substantial Equivalence VS Safety. Obviously - you can not prove something to be safe. It can even be dubious to prove something Un-safe at times. Most of the governments who have addressed GM Food Safety have attemted to put in place a mechanism requiring new crops to be proven to be basically the same as existing crops. This is also exceedingly difficult since the list of things to be considered equivilent is incredibly long: No new proteins in the field, no new chemicals produced, amounts and combinations must be similar to historically proven crops, environmental interactions must be unchanged, IIRC, on the Japanese board there was even discussion on requiring proof that societal reaction to the crop must be shown to be equivalent.
I know that this principle must surely have become the core of the FDA system too, but I would apreciate some updates on the systems you use to accomplish this. State of the art from other countries would be appreciated too.
It would seem then, that you are referring to the loss of brand recognition in the switch to Fedora - and not any technical difference from RH9 nor any potential loss of contribution from RH.
If it is the poor branding that you are referring to in calling Fedora a litter box, then isn't that immenently within our power to influence as slashdot regulars?
And, again, as I've heard it, future changes to RHEL will mostly come from Fedora. So how is the opportunity to contribute to RHEL reduced with a more open community involvement (except that it would be more competitive)?
You've never worked in Enterprise management, have you?
Wow, this is confusing for us non-kernel-developers!
Please explain why RH9 was the mother of all distros and Fedora is a "cat-shit-filled sandbox".
1. what are the things they took out - other than logos (and were they really allowed to do that?)
2. what are the "cat shits" that were added, and what makes it harder to get invoved with that addition process now that it is outside of RH?
3. is it the additional RH developers that are sabotaging Fedora - or did they lose someone?
This is not flamebait - as a non contributor, I really don't know what about fedora has changed (other than logo copyrights and exposure to the development cycle).
To someone like me, the RH Spin looks good - same people, working on virtually same project, more open to community involvement, continuing whithout the RH branding. Maybe I need to read more, but I got the impression that RHEL would be skimming the bulk of their upgrade revisions off of Fedora in the future, keeping the two fairly sync'd. That's where their developers are working after all. I haven't seen anything yet that implies that this is anything other that simply moving all RH user support to EL - and that impression does not jive at all with the parents comments - You are obviously angry for a reason; help us out.
what am I missing?
I am fully behind you .
I have started the same thing - but don't forget to mention *RIAA Radar*.
Before you buy a CD, make sure the album was not released by an RIAA member at http://www.riaaradar.com/
Lots of great musicians out there!
(I recently discovered "Hayseed Dixie" - which tested safe on the radar)
I hope others get on board too. Tell everyone you know to check the Radar before buying!
The emphasis on "None" is highly inappropriate. This is a discussion (albeit an abused one) not only of legalities, but of Moralities. 1) she may or may not have distributed files. 2) she may or may not have had a legal right to do so 3) To beat that dead horse one more time: There are countless people here (apparently the vast majority) who believe she has the moral right to share stuff - including music. So to conclude that the RIAA, the DCMA, or any law that does not have the support of the majority, is "in the right" is a little hasty - if you were to ask me.
That's a fine clarification of the parent, but I don't see where you disagree. Why so angry?
Different objectives, same means...
/.'ers all belong to.
Here's why market share counts:
I love my desktop/mandrake - I like using it to do my work; it allows me to adapt, build skill, contribute to this small community that
I want to add a handheld to my network, but need the bandwidth/range of 1xRTT.
Oops, I guess that part of my network will have to be windows.
My users at the office can not get thier apps for linux, so those clients will have to be windows. I want to work with those systems & people around me,... since they are windows and M$ has 95% MS, they define the standards and can afford to sabatage the 5% that my beloved desktop/mandrake belongs to.
Oops, I guess My desktop needs to be windows and my dual boot functionality will never be more than a hobby.
But wait...
I'm the IT Director. I'm the SysAdmin too, I should be able to choose my system.
Oops, I guess that even though I have the resources to choose, maintain, even customize our internal system - I don't have the resources to do this in spite of a monopoly who is trying to prevent my system from communicating with the outside world. I'm too small to keep up interoperability development.
Oops, I guess I don't have linux as a choice.
Hmmm, it seems like in the Server World, M$ isn't able to sabatage standards as much - Oh yeah, I guess they don't have Market Share there!
Therefore...
Consolation Prize = I get to keep my Samba Server for a few more months.
Lesson Learned == Market Share = only hope for Linux to develop = long term survival.
Yes, Market Share counts, and without Desktop linux has already reached max market share (MS). There is a minimum market share threshold below which Linux is effectively blocked as a choice. You may have the resources to play with linux in your closed environment, but what about those of us who desparately want to participate at the same level as you, but don't have the resources. What about the important software development work that is simply not being done because the world is forced to "make do" with a poorly fitted windows solution when a pre-existing & custom refined OSS solution would be trivial.
Oops, I guess it would cost too much to integrate with the mandatory desktop OS.
I believe you sum up the Devil's Advocate position well. In fact these superficial comments are the only ones I've ever heard actually "defending" the RIAA. For the benefit of the hard-of-thinking, I'll quickly distill out the points you make through conspicuous absence of mention.
1. Yes, they always try to discount the underlying moral issues, but at the end of the day, people should not replace morals with law.
2. The highest moral at stake is the need to protect the human capacity to evolve. Continuing the drive towards shared experience is top priority.
3. Recording industry and Music industry are not the same, or even very closely connected. Mucisians have made livings for thousands of years. There was a brief period in history during which sound duplication & distribution could only be done by large corporations. This period did change the Music industry. Thankfully, that period is over.
(From here on out, its a discussion of corporate planning, not morals, so the last 2 points are sort of moot.)
4. The Recording industry reduces musician income - it does not defend it. (as a musician, I can vouch for this) It slightly increases the income of a statistically non-existent group of mucicians, dramatically increases (Creates, actually) the income of recording corporations, and seriously hinders regionalized development of musicians everywhere. The musicians who are super-rich would be super-rich without copywrite laws. It's good marketing and merchandising, not recording reproduction or distribution sales that build Musician wealth. Marketing and merchandising tools work in any medium - not just the recording industry. (This I also know from successful experience)
5. As implied above, People buy artist merchandise like t-shirts, biographies, videos, & CDs to possess, see, touch, and viscerally reference. (Yes, we've come full circle to the "Culture" topic, just like the parent post did) Making audio experience shareable will never eliminate that - and the experiment/debate as to whether it increases or decreases it is still out.
Other posts discuss other valid themes to this issue, but I think this re-phrases the themes you mentioned.