"Intelectual Property" is such a crap term, which is why I always put it in quotes.
How can it be property if I still have it after I sell it to you?
How can it be theft if I still have it after you've taken it?
Maybe the language isn't there yet, but "property" and "theft" are not terms that make any sense in when it comes to copyright and patents. All the property talk does is confuse the and prejudice public opinion. The term "I.T." needs to be abandoned if there is ever to be any smart public debate about this.
There is more incentive for people to do stuff if the amount of time they get a monopoly on their work is short. If there is only 7 years before something goes into public domain, a fiction writer has to either make a new edition of the book or write a new one. This encourages artists to create a lot more and put a lot more ideas out into the wild. Getting more and more ideas out into the open so they could evolve was the orginal intent of copyright in the U.S. It was not created so someone (usally a middleman) can horde ideas and make money off them almost ad infinitum... which is how it's being used today.
I have never been under the impression that L.L. was against copyright or patents in principle (at least not as they were conceived of in the constitution), he was just against how they have been distorted and twisted into long-term monopolies that are used for no other reason than make money. When I saw him speak, he pointed out that copyright was set up to encourage writers (and at first it was ONLY writers) to continuously work and release stuff out into the creative commons, where in a limited period of time (conservatively, more list 7 years instead of the lifetime of the artist) it would be released out to open for everyone to use freely.
If copyright was instituted correctly and as the founding fathers intended it would encourage a continuous upgrade of ideas from everyone, including the original author. For instance, if a writer of a novel would have to keep on writing in one way or another. When corps cry about the importance of copyright, it's often forgotten that a fiction writer, for example, could just release a new edition of their work that might have a new introduction or new essays about the work or even slight revisions on the story and this would be a BRAND NEW copyright, giving them a new 7 years (or whatever) for the new work. A nonfiction writer could also add evidence or do other rewrites to their work and they would likewise get a BRAND NEW copyright, or a new author could then build on the previous ideas brought forward freely. As you can see, this "classic" copyright encourages continuous work while our version of copyright encourages you to sit back and collect the dough for the rest of your life.
So he's not really anti-copyright or anti-license. He's against using it in a way that goes against what its original intent. So in a you're right.. he's not revolutionary. He wants to go back to the original rules. I for one agree with him.
I acted on what I was constantly told growing up, so I will appologize here and say I was wrong about my assertion.
However, I would like to point out that the research here does state this:
The hydrogen burned quickly, safely, above the occupants. When the escaping hydrogen was ignited by the burning skin of the airship, it burned far above the airship, and was completely consumed within 60 seconds of the ignition. During this period of time, the airship descended to the ground from the 150-foot docking tower.
So, the assertion that the Hydrogen DID NOT burn seems to be incorrect. When the fire started there was no way that the hydrogen could get out quickly enough to NOT set the hydrogen on fire, but fast enough that it moved away from the ship.
I still personally don't think it's a good idea though to put that my gassous hydrogen in one place.
They only did one and I am not sure what parts of the books it covers. I haven't seen it in whole either because when it was first on I was waiting for the cable to be turned back on from a move.
But it is exciting to see them dip their toe into works like Farmer and Herbert and the like... it sure goes against the current trend of film scifi-- just finding something that they can easily rape. I love Phillip K. Dick movies, but Hollywood is taking all the meat out of those stores and only using them because it's easy to throw action scenes around his main plot... really sad.
I see the Internet as the one great leveler in the world today. American Society has been totally bought out by large corporation and other groups of people with special agendas, the economy is measured by the well being of big businesses and not the family that can barely make a payment on their debt, etc... The current Internet DNS system is the ONLY place where a large corp., a small business, and a private individual bascially have the same footing. www.smith.com can be a large manufacturing venture, a small supply store, or a family website just depending on who gets there first and who will pay the $35 (or whatever) per year.
Giving large corporations top level domains will KILL this. You know it will be expensive and only open to a "select" group of people, and all of sudden anyone that has to put a.something after their name will be seen as second class sites... I can the "tips and tricks" FAQs at to corporate sites now... "Don't buy from or trust sites with generic domains like.com,.org, or.net. Top level domains are a sign of quality!"
We don't need the corps. to dominate the Internet any more than they do with their advantages of huge marketing budgets and default web pages that automatically go to "msn.com". We need the DNS to stay blind to organization size if we are going to keep any hope of having a platform to speak out that is not totally dominated by a corporate gatekeepers.
What about lack of Morality among today's corporations for abusing and mis-using copyright laws?
Oh... that's always been a problem you say? So has "the lack of morals among today's youth." 1930s-40s: "Bing Crosby and Spike Jones are corrupting today's youth!" 1950s-1960: "Elvis Presley and the Beatles are corrupting today's youth!" 1970s-1980s: "Disco is corrupting today's youth!" Today it's file sharing and rap music and video games.
Really a great, great product, and it's a group of people that are dedicated to making Linux work as desktop product for everyone.
I have office on my desktop Linux boxes, not to use full time (as I truely like OpenOffice an ALL platforms) but as a way to get around the office drones who have brain collapses when getting RTF or even PDF files. Also, I happen to like Dreamweaver as a platform to do quick web development. Mix that with the fact you can have Photoshop working without a VM and being able to use great stuff like Quanta to do code development... it really is the best of both worlds.
Also it's a good example of why pay software (when priced reasonably) really does have it's place on the Linux platform.
Well if you weren't afraid of reading anything under 3 you dumb piece of shit you would KNOW that it was an attack, wouldn't you.
You fucking high-minded snooty-ass fuckers who refuse to read ANYTHING that might offend you. If you read 0s or even -1s sometime you might find that there they aren't actually all trolls... but there is no way you would do that, would you?
I don't recall calling anyone in Congress stupid. My statement isn't about the staffers, its about the politicians. Politicians love to get their fingers in stuff like this, and something so high profile I bet that there would be at least one of them that would LOVE to get involved no matter how many people would say that it is ill-advised. Oh... that and the fact that lobbists from big companies (not only Microsoft) would bring it up and encourage their "participation" as well.
No no no... it's possible to for them to do when it's under the radar and Congress isn't smart enough to understand what they are doing... but networks are high profile now and this would be a VERY high profile project. Do you think that they would hesitate to get involved with something they THOUGHT they understood... no way.
GPS, stealth, Arpanet... yeah they did it, but no one in congress had any clue about it or any idea how important they would become. That would not be possible with this project.
Obviously the writer of the article and Gibson don't understand how the system works at all... they're with the normal public thinking that e-mail is being transfered from place to place as some whole document and not understanding the basics of packets or anything in TCP/IP.
I am not a network engineer... but I am pretty sure that if you wanted to assure the delivery of email you would do it at a HIGH level in the stack, not at the transport level. If they are talking about packets, it has already been done. I am not sure that the Gibson in the article really understands what he wants.
It's pretty clear they've got the ideas and concepts all screwed up here.
Yay! Sounds like a great idea... get the government involved with solving all the technical problems.
Watch congress get involved! Watch how the project ends up championed by the "experts" at Microsoft (because they pay the dough and it's the only name the congressdrones know). Watch how the whole project ends up propritary and billg forces the government to pay $50 per node. Finally.. watch how the whole system ends up unreliable... so we end up with a system that is not free, expensive, and less reliable than before.
Keep the government out of the center of it... let them contribute to the community like everyone else and MAYBE we will get something that works that everyone can use without selling their soul.
Slashdot Mirror
"Intelectual Property" is such a crap term, which is why I always put it in quotes.
How can it be property if I still have it after I sell it to you?
How can it be theft if I still have it after you've taken it?
Maybe the language isn't there yet, but "property" and "theft" are not terms that make any sense in when it comes to copyright and patents. All the property talk does is confuse the and prejudice public opinion. The term "I.T." needs to be abandoned if there is ever to be any smart public debate about this.
There is more incentive for people to do stuff if the amount of time they get a monopoly on their work is short. If there is only 7 years before something goes into public domain, a fiction writer has to either make a new edition of the book or write a new one. This encourages artists to create a lot more and put a lot more ideas out into the wild. Getting more and more ideas out into the open so they could evolve was the orginal intent of copyright in the U.S. It was not created so someone (usally a middleman) can horde ideas and make money off them almost ad infinitum... which is how it's being used today.
I have never been under the impression that L.L. was against copyright or patents in principle (at least not as they were conceived of in the constitution), he was just against how they have been distorted and twisted into long-term monopolies that are used for no other reason than make money. When I saw him speak, he pointed out that copyright was set up to encourage writers (and at first it was ONLY writers) to continuously work and release stuff out into the creative commons, where in a limited period of time (conservatively, more list 7 years instead of the lifetime of the artist) it would be released out to open for everyone to use freely.
If copyright was instituted correctly and as the founding fathers intended it would encourage a continuous upgrade of ideas from everyone, including the original author. For instance, if a writer of a novel would have to keep on writing in one way or another. When corps cry about the importance of copyright, it's often forgotten that a fiction writer, for example, could just release a new edition of their work that might have a new introduction or new essays about the work or even slight revisions on the story and this would be a BRAND NEW copyright, giving them a new 7 years (or whatever) for the new work. A nonfiction writer could also add evidence or do other rewrites to their work and they would likewise get a BRAND NEW copyright, or a new author could then build on the previous ideas brought forward freely. As you can see, this "classic" copyright encourages continuous work while our version of copyright encourages you to sit back and collect the dough for the rest of your life.
So he's not really anti-copyright or anti-license. He's against using it in a way that goes against what its original intent. So in a you're right.. he's not revolutionary. He wants to go back to the original rules. I for one agree with him.
I acted on what I was constantly told growing up, so I will appologize here and say I was wrong about my assertion.
However, I would like to point out that the research here does state this:
The hydrogen burned quickly, safely, above the occupants. When the escaping hydrogen was ignited by the burning skin of the airship, it burned far above the airship, and was completely consumed within 60 seconds of the ignition. During this period of time, the airship descended to the ground from the 150-foot docking tower.
So, the assertion that the Hydrogen DID NOT burn seems to be incorrect. When the fire started there was no way that the hydrogen could get out quickly enough to NOT set the hydrogen on fire, but fast enough that it moved away from the ship.
I still personally don't think it's a good idea though to put that my gassous hydrogen in one place.
That's like saying the wood isn't to blame for your house burning down. Hydrogen was the fuel, not the cause.
Here is a good reason why NOT to use hydrogen.
They only did one and I am not sure what parts of the books it covers. I haven't seen it in whole either because when it was first on I was waiting for the cable to be turned back on from a move.
But it is exciting to see them dip their toe into works like Farmer and Herbert and the like... it sure goes against the current trend of film scifi-- just finding something that they can easily rape. I love Phillip K. Dick movies, but Hollywood is taking all the meat out of those stores and only using them because it's easy to throw action scenes around his main plot... really sad.
Aren't SCI-Fi ever going to continue with the Riverworld books, or was the response to that too disapointing?
"What am I supposed to do if the internet gets as trashy as TV ?"
What planet are you living on?
Go to Google and search for "schoolgirl" and I think you might be shocked! Maybe pleasantly so... I don't know you well enough to say!
I see the Internet as the one great leveler in the world today. American Society has been totally bought out by large corporation and other groups of people with special agendas, the economy is measured by the well being of big businesses and not the family that can barely make a payment on their debt, etc... The current Internet DNS system is the ONLY place where a large corp., a small business, and a private individual bascially have the same footing. www.smith.com can be a large manufacturing venture, a small supply store, or a family website just depending on who gets there first and who will pay the $35 (or whatever) per year.
.something after their name will be seen as second class sites... I can the "tips and tricks" FAQs at to corporate sites now... "Don't buy from or trust sites with generic domains like .com, .org, or .net. Top level domains are a sign of quality!"
Giving large corporations top level domains will KILL this. You know it will be expensive and only open to a "select" group of people, and all of sudden anyone that has to put a
We don't need the corps. to dominate the Internet any more than they do with their advantages of huge marketing budgets and default web pages that automatically go to "msn.com". We need the DNS to stay blind to organization size if we are going to keep any hope of having a platform to speak out that is not totally dominated by a corporate gatekeepers.
What about lack of Morality among today's corporations for abusing and mis-using copyright laws?
Oh... that's always been a problem you say? So has "the lack of morals among today's youth." 1930s-40s: "Bing Crosby and Spike Jones are corrupting today's youth!" 1950s-1960: "Elvis Presley and the Beatles are corrupting today's youth!" 1970s-1980s: "Disco is corrupting today's youth!" Today it's file sharing and rap music and video games.
Not convincing then and not convincing now.
Really a great, great product, and it's a group of people that are dedicated to making Linux work as desktop product for everyone.
I have office on my desktop Linux boxes, not to use full time (as I truely like OpenOffice an ALL platforms) but as a way to get around the office drones who have brain collapses when getting RTF or even PDF files. Also, I happen to like Dreamweaver as a platform to do quick web development. Mix that with the fact you can have Photoshop working without a VM and being able to use great stuff like Quanta to do code development... it really is the best of both worlds.
Also it's a good example of why pay software (when priced reasonably) really does have it's place on the Linux platform.
does it run linux?
i guess.. more on point... how do you access it? It would seem a ribbon cable would be bigger than the HD!
Anyway.... IDE, SCSI... is it something I could put in my box right now (if it were out)? Wow... imagine a RAID array full of 15000 of those or so....
You shouldn't take ANY document at face value... it doesn't matter if it's on the web or not.
this isn't an Internet thing... get a grip.
Oh Bull... the REAL clue about how to avoid lawsuits: don't cross people with money.
Lawsuits are an offence today, not a defence.
Well if you weren't afraid of reading anything under 3 you dumb piece of shit you would KNOW that it was an attack, wouldn't you.
You fucking high-minded snooty-ass fuckers who refuse to read ANYTHING that might offend you. If you read 0s or even -1s sometime you might find that there they aren't actually all trolls... but there is no way you would do that, would you?
fuckers like you make me sick.
That's good... it gives the starting 13, but what about the other 33?
I don't recall calling anyone in Congress stupid. My statement isn't about the staffers, its about the politicians. Politicians love to get their fingers in stuff like this, and something so high profile I bet that there would be at least one of them that would LOVE to get involved no matter how many people would say that it is ill-advised. Oh... that and the fact that lobbists from big companies (not only Microsoft) would bring it up and encourage their "participation" as well.
there are numbers but not a list!
we need a list! if my state was involved I would like to know!
No no no... it's possible to for them to do when it's under the radar and Congress isn't smart enough to understand what they are doing... but networks are high profile now and this would be a VERY high profile project. Do you think that they would hesitate to get involved with something they THOUGHT they understood... no way.
GPS, stealth, Arpanet... yeah they did it, but no one in congress had any clue about it or any idea how important they would become. That would not be possible with this project.
Obviously the writer of the article and Gibson don't understand how the system works at all... they're with the normal public thinking that e-mail is being transfered from place to place as some whole document and not understanding the basics of packets or anything in TCP/IP.
I am not a network engineer... but I am pretty sure that if you wanted to assure the delivery of email you would do it at a HIGH level in the stack, not at the transport level. If they are talking about packets, it has already been done. I am not sure that the Gibson in the article really understands what he wants.
It's pretty clear they've got the ideas and concepts all screwed up here.
Yay! Sounds like a great idea... get the government involved with solving all the technical problems.
Watch congress get involved! Watch how the project ends up championed by the "experts" at Microsoft (because they pay the dough and it's the only name the congressdrones know). Watch how the whole project ends up propritary and billg forces the government to pay $50 per node. Finally.. watch how the whole system ends up unreliable... so we end up with a system that is not free, expensive, and less reliable than before.
Keep the government out of the center of it... let them contribute to the community like everyone else and MAYBE we will get something that works that everyone can use without selling their soul.
thanks for taking me there--at least in spirit.
So you were a stow-away on Spirit?? How is your internet conncetion up there?
It wasn't Norelco... it was Remington with the "I liked it so much I bought the company" ads.
Norelco first built the 3 headed raisors... Remington has the screens.. "The first one cuts incredibly close, the second even closer!"