If Quasars are correlated photon emitters, then perhaps they can be used for encryption in the same way as quantum entanglement is used already?
All you have to do is ensure that both commnuicating parties sample ENOUGH of the particles arriving at earth, and presumably enough of them will be entangled such that any other observer would have a statistically observable effect on their communication, i.e. detectable as an interceptor.
OK, that's sounds hopeless.
How about if there was one day found to be a way of communicating via entanglement? Then perhaps quasars might well be great sources of entangled particles.
Remember, science is not advanced by claims of "Impossible!", but by "I wonder if..."
Let's say 50MB for a reasonable, average CD encoding of tolerable quality.
That's around 500 albums per disc.
Which is about 25,000 per stack of 50.
Which, if you have a carousel/jukebox holding 400 discs at a time, is 200,000 albums.
That's about 80 years worth of listening if you listen to music about 7 hours a day.
And when prices of BD-R 100 stacks come down to $50 next year, you'll be able to get every album ever released so far for $200 plus whatever markup your friendly ripper charges you.
Soon the problem won't be obtaining the music, it'll be trying to figure out what to listen to next, and how to persuade musicians to produce more.
There is nothing inherently wrong with commercial exploitation, just as, for example, there is nothing inherently wrong with racial or sexual discrimination.
The wrong only occurs when you insert the word 'unfair'.
The GPL and CC-SA are commercially permissive 'Share Alike' licenses, i.e. they fully permit any commercial use of the work or derivatives. However, unlike the BSD or public domain, they ensure FAIR commercial exploitation by requiring any re-publishing of the work or its derivatives to occur under the same license.
In this way they do indeed address commercial exploitation. They ensure that it's fair.
In this case you provide a CC-NC license, and for anyone wishing to commercially exploit it, you rely upon them approaching you for a bespoke license.
However, why should your particular work ethic prevent a more Christian one? Hence: I donate my work freely to the world and anyone who would make use of it, on the proviso that anyone who does so, whether or not they make money in the process, must donate their work to the world on the same basis.
You may believe in denying your fellow man a living from your gifts, but not everyone shares that approach. Be careful before you denounce their work ethic.
any Derivative Work of a Work already in the Public Domain is automatically deemed to be in the Public Domain
Ahem. The typical case is generally the opposite:
Any derivative work of a work already in the public domain is automatically deemed to NOT be in the public domain, but copyright of the author of the derivative.
This is one of the key reasons why the GPL is necessary. If the PD worked as you suggest, we could all simply donate our source code to the public domain knowing that all derivatives would be uncopyrightable, i.e. necessarily public domain.
You should have posted that contentious phrase of yours directly:
Today, there's no effective way to earn a living from writing open source software, because it's "free". The result? The GPL is relegating some truly brilliant programmers to being hobbyist inventors, and it is because there is no mechanism in the GPL for paying them for what they've contributed.
QuidMusic is an entirely new way to buy and sell music.
Instead of recording new music, retailing each copy to their fans one by one in music shops or online, QuidMusic lets musicians deal directly with their fans en masse.
Musicians can now simply put a Pledge £1 for my next release (via QuidMusic) button on their web page. This let's the musician sell their music and not the copies.
This pledge button represents a commitment by the fan to buy the musician's next release for £1. At last there's a way a fan can say "I like your music. Please make more. I'll be happy to buy your next release for £1."
If nothing is released, the fan pays nothing and gets nothing.
But if there is a release, each fan pays £1, and not only gets to download one or more MP3 files, but can also download high quality digital masters too!
If the musician can't really afford to release their next work for less than say £1,000, no worries, they can wait until they have at least a thousand fans. QuidMusic won't release anything until the musician's ready.
QuidMusic is all about a free and fair marketplace in which musicians and fans can meet and decide whether or not to do a deal - with no pressure. Musicians can decide to sell their music elsewhere. Fans can withdraw their pledges.
QuidMusic only makes any charge when something is released (15% commission to cover credit card transaction fees and other costs), so it's absolutely free to try without risk or commitment.
You could also utilise the telephone letter codings for each digit and permit variable length alphabetical names, but then you'd need ICANN or someone like it to arbitrate over collisions - or perhaps you permit collisions but allow the user to scroll through them all (ideally in registration date order).
Maybe all coders should unite and create a website where they publicly declare petition-style that they wholeheartedly believe that the actions of the RIAA/MPAA/etc are going to cause serious social harm?
It should probably also be a petition for the abolition of copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd use such a test if I were an employer.
I'd reject all candidates that submitted themselves to it.
Perhaps this is an oblique reference to an SF novel?
http://www.groove.net/ is what you need. Supported by Microsoft too.
If Quasars are correlated photon emitters, then perhaps they can be used for encryption in the same way as quantum entanglement is used already?
All you have to do is ensure that both commnuicating parties sample ENOUGH of the particles arriving at earth, and presumably enough of them will be entangled such that any other observer would have a statistically observable effect on their communication, i.e. detectable as an interceptor.
OK, that's sounds hopeless.
How about if there was one day found to be a way of communicating via entanglement? Then perhaps quasars might well be great sources of entangled particles.
Remember, science is not advanced by claims of "Impossible!", but by "I wonder if..."
Let's say 50MB for a reasonable, average CD encoding of tolerable quality.
That's around 500 albums per disc.
Which is about 25,000 per stack of 50.
Which, if you have a carousel/jukebox holding 400 discs at a time, is 200,000 albums.
That's about 80 years worth of listening if you listen to music about 7 hours a day.
And when prices of BD-R 100 stacks come down to $50 next year, you'll be able to get every album ever released so far for $200 plus whatever markup your friendly ripper charges you.
Soon the problem won't be obtaining the music, it'll be trying to figure out what to listen to next, and how to persuade musicians to produce more.
See http://www.quidmusic.com/
I didn't say it cut out all middle-men, it cuts out "the man", i.e. the greedy labels who take vastly more than 15%, e.g. 99%.
Much of that 15% goes in covering the transaction costs, that people like PayPal charge (until now).
No doubt QuidMusic will revise their fees in light of this, perhaps bringing it as low as 5%?
http://www.quidmusic.com/ is trying to provide a simple means for musicians to cut out "the man".
There is nothing inherently wrong with commercial exploitation, just as, for example, there is nothing inherently wrong with racial or sexual discrimination.
The wrong only occurs when you insert the word 'unfair'.
The GPL and CC-SA are commercially permissive 'Share Alike' licenses, i.e. they fully permit any commercial use of the work or derivatives. However, unlike the BSD or public domain, they ensure FAIR commercial exploitation by requiring any re-publishing of the work or its derivatives to occur under the same license.
In this way they do indeed address commercial exploitation. They ensure that it's fair.
In this case you provide a CC-NC license, and for anyone wishing to commercially exploit it, you rely upon them approaching you for a bespoke license.
However, why should your particular work ethic prevent a more Christian one?
Hence:
I donate my work freely to the world and anyone who would make use of it, on the proviso that anyone who does so, whether or not they make money in the process, must donate their work to the world on the same basis.
You may believe in denying your fellow man a living from your gifts, but not everyone shares that approach. Be careful before you denounce their work ethic.
Ahem. The typical case is generally the opposite:
Any derivative work of a work already in the public domain is automatically deemed to NOT be in the public domain, but copyright of the author of the derivative.
This is one of the key reasons why the GPL is necessary. If the PD worked as you suggest, we could all simply donate our source code to the public domain knowing that all derivatives would be uncopyrightable, i.e. necessarily public domain.
QuidMusic is an entirely new way to buy and sell music.
Instead of recording new music, retailing each copy to their fans one by one in music shops or online, QuidMusic lets musicians deal directly with their fans en masse.
Musicians can now simply put a Pledge £1 for my next release (via QuidMusic) button on their web page. This let's the musician sell their music and not the copies.
This pledge button represents a commitment by the fan to buy the musician's next release for £1. At last there's a way a fan can say "I like your music. Please make more. I'll be happy to buy your next release for £1."
If nothing is released, the fan pays nothing and gets nothing.
But if there is a release, each fan pays £1, and not only gets to download one or more MP3 files, but can also download high quality digital masters too!
If the musician can't really afford to release their next work for less than say £1,000, no worries, they can wait until they have at least a thousand fans. QuidMusic won't release anything until the musician's ready.
QuidMusic is all about a free and fair marketplace in which musicians and fans can meet and decide whether or not to do a deal - with no pressure. Musicians can decide to sell their music elsewhere. Fans can withdraw their pledges.
QuidMusic only makes any charge when something is released (15% commission to cover credit card transaction fees and other costs), so it's absolutely free to try without risk or commitment.
Try out http://popcast.com/ for an example of BitTorrent TV.
It may be worth a look.
http://dijjer.org/
You could also utilise the telephone letter codings for each digit and permit variable length alphabetical names, but then you'd need ICANN or someone like it to arbitrate over collisions - or perhaps you permit collisions but allow the user to scroll through them all (ideally in registration date order).
Maybe all coders should unite and create a website where they publicly declare petition-style that they wholeheartedly believe that the actions of the RIAA/MPAA/etc are going to cause serious social harm?
It should probably also be a petition for the abolition of copyright.
Incidentally, anyone got any C++/C# work going?
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Hmmm... perhaps it's a JPEG artefact?
Where's the lossless version for such a critical piccie eh?
That was just the thumbnail. Doh!
Try this for the full 'photo':
http://www.eurocopter.com/everest/img/029.JPG
Check out this piccie:
j pg
http://everestnews.com/stories2005/pictures/029p.
Why does it look like the helicopter has been Photoshopped into the shot?
Are they using photomontage for 'artists impressions' these days?
There is a bounty system already: The Digital Art Auction.
How about: "Best Movie Based on a Game"?
Or even: "Best Machinima Movie"?
Or better still: "Most original game not based on a movie, toy, book, etc."?
It's free, but not open source:
http://www.qubesoft.com/
Check out The Digital Art Auction.
That amortises the cost of art over a large audience.