It maybe a inferior product, but if it takes less energy to generate then starting from scratch you are still coming out ahead.
Many forms of recycling take more energy than working from raw materials. Such recycling is only commercially viable thanks to the high charges for landfill and dumping of used goods.
Because classically, "recycling" means putting it back through industrial processes to manufacture a new item. The extended meaning of recycling to cover reuse, repair and repurposing inadvertently puts carbon-intensive collection and reprocessing of glass on an equal footing with not putting the glass in the bin at all and using it to store things instead of silly plastic Tupperware items.
If I do a work for hire whether it is building a deck or writing an app, I get paid and that's it.
If you do a work for hire, there's one person who's paying you. If you are an author, there isn't one person who just pays for everything -- you actually need to sell the book again and again to make back the time you spent on it.
If I create a new product, I get patent protection for 20 years and that's it.
There's a huge difference between copyright and patent.
Patent law was designed to prevent factory machinery designs being kept secret. Factory owners were inventing better and better machines, but keeping them secret so that they would retain competitive advantage. Some designs died with their owners. Patents protection was invented to encourage inventors to document their creations while preventing others from using them, but then to allow the next inventor to create a better machine without being blocked by the patent.
A book isn't a machine or technique, so it's not like technological advancement is hanging on being able to use a copyright work.
(That's not to say I don't think copyright terms aren't too long.)
However, Project Gutenberg does very very little to promote the fact that copyright terms are different in different countries. It would have been pretty trivial to set up the site with an awareness of international terms and dynamically generate correct copyright information for any users from outside of the US.
Leftie keyboards are harder to come by, and I used to work in a hot-desk office. Switching the mouse buttons and moving the mouse has been trivially easy in most places I've worked, so I've stuck with that.
Look, this is more like pointing out that you're measuring the total length of the world's rivers wrong when you measure the source of the Rio Negro and the Rio Amazon from source to sea, because for a fair portion of that length, the Rio Negro is the Amazon. If hydrological researchers were making such a fundamental error, someone would have to point it out.
But code researchers were making a completely analogous error, and it needed quantified. And now it is.
And this was considered to be nature, not nurture.
Weird nature point: lefties and ambidextrous people typically have less of a "sworl" on the crown of their heads, meaning their hair is more symmetrical at the back (righties' hair tends to spiral to behind the left ear before going downwards, lefties' hair tends to go straight down across the back.)
That's the hilarious part; duplicating code is also most of the purpose of github!!
Wetness detected in local river!
How about reading the point made in TFS?
The researchers did this study because Github is used as a source of data for identifying trends in computing. As they say, this duplication of code skews the results, and anyone wanting to draw serious conclusions from this data needs to account for this.
The important data isn't the headline, it's... well... the data. I'm hoping there will be less (virtual) printing of sensationalist "JavaScript is the best language in the world" headlines due to this prompting people to question the methodology.
If it's not enough to be your sole source of income because of limited hours, that's one thing. If it's not enough to be your sole source of income when done full-time, it's not paying enough. If the job is worth employing someone to do, it's worth paying them enough that they can eat and not die of hunger on the job, as was common during the Industrial Revolution.
This isn't "the free market". Its clearly activity that is meant to deceive / cheat the consumer. One can argue its legalities, but it isn't "the free market" where 2 people are trading goods/services in fair manner.
The problem is that ignorance is considered a fair market force by many -- any price a customer is willing to pay is by nature fair.
The main benefit of regulated markets is that they stop ignorance being a market force, because they explicitly prohibit exploiting consumer ignorance. At the end of the day, we can't expect every consumer to carry out their own due diligence on every purchase they make -- it would be totally inefficient and wouldn't benefit wider society.
Of course they're happy that not letting competitors pick up their code for free and profit off it is stopping competitors picking up their code for free and profitting off it -- I hardly think that's what "chilling effect" means. They have produced something that is badly needed at considerable expense to themselves. They have made the source available for non-commercial uses, which is part self-promotion and part generosity, but mostly just a responsible, sensible move for something that claims to be secure. Security-by-obscurity doesn't protect Microsoft or Apple, and having the code available means they have to make damned sure they're genuinely secure.
They may no understand licensing, but they (the people behind CopperheadOS) also don't understand hypocrisy.
CopperheadOS is based on Android (which they didn't create), which itself is based on the Linux kernel (which they also didn't create). They are perfectly happy to take the work of others and use it for their own benefit, but when someone else does that to THEM . . . ..ZOMG!!! IT'S TERRIBLE!! WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS!!!
STFU.
There is no hypocrisy in this.
Linux and Android provide a common "floor" that everyone can build from, in the same way that there is a massive base of shared public knowledge in science and engineering that we all tap into when we start making physical products.
The makers of Apache understood that the software they were all contributing to would offer benefits to private companies as well as the universities they worked for, and they understood that they were contributing to creating a shared knowledge base that had potential to make everyone's lives better -- their software went on to become more important to the entire world than they could ever have possibly dreamed. Even where people use servers other than Apache itself, the base level of performance was defined by Apache. Apache built the world we know, and its permissive license is part of the reason it could.
The makers of Android chose the Apache license knowing full well what it meant (was it Android Inc. who open-sourced it or Google?) and to use it exactly as the makers intended is in no way hypocritical.
Unless you think it's hypocritical that Android apps charge money having been built on a free platform and making extensive use of free APIs rather than talking direct to the hardware (which is impossible for an Android app to do anyway).
The only way a derivative work of an Apache-licensed package is unauthorised is if you neglect to credit the named copyright holders of the code you derived your version from. But if you credit the original authors, you are allowed to slap literally whatever license you like on it. As long as you are not claiming credit for having written code you haven't, object files are yours to distribute however you see fit.
"Wikipedia is both an organization and a social movement,"
That, is why it fails.
Remember boys and girls,. citing Wikipedia is still a reason for an automatic fail for most university professors
That's irrelevant. First up, because everything in Wikipedia is sourced, you don't need to cite Wikipedia -- you can pick up the source and look it up in the library. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't disregarded as a citation source because it's normally inaccurate, but for two reasons: 1) it changes frequently, so it's too much work to verify it as a source and 2) the student could theoretically change it to say whatever they want to put in their essay.
Banning citing Wikipedia actually makes Wikipedia more reliable in the long term.
The move to the invariant "there's" is a legitimate and logical change in English. "There are..." originates in the Germanic verb-second rule that gives rise to archaic sentences such as "rarely do people write like this now" and "Old King Cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he."
It has been quite a few centuries since verb-second ceased to be a productive rule in English, and the few remaining fossilised exceptions have slowly dropped out of use since.
Furthermore, we now have "it's me", "it's you" and "it's us", where the verb does not encode number, and this is really no different to switching to "there's"/"there is" as a fixed singular expression.
"Ain't" is a phonetic spelling of a mispronunciation of a contraction of "am not". From "amn't", the m and n merge (somewhat like "damn it" -> "dammit"), yielding "an't". Mispronouncing the vowel as a long "a" yields something that sounds like "ain't", and writing that down phonetically yields "ain't" itself.
What is your evidence of this? There's a lot of incompatible theories about "ain't".
English is an incredibly fault tolerant language. You can use completely the wrong sausage and everyone will still understand what you bacon. This is what makes the language so powerful and widely used. No other language in the world has the same robustness which is why it will remain the language of business for a long time.
Shullbit. All languages are fault tolerant to a similar degree, although the areas they are most tolerant in might vary. English has its limits -- for example, there is no way of resolving "I will do it yesterday" without directly asking for clarification (assuming you're not talking to Marty McFly, that is).
Slashdot Mirror
It maybe a inferior product, but if it takes less energy to generate then starting from scratch you are still coming out ahead.
Many forms of recycling take more energy than working from raw materials. Such recycling is only commercially viable thanks to the high charges for landfill and dumping of used goods.
How is that not recycling?
Because classically, "recycling" means putting it back through industrial processes to manufacture a new item. The extended meaning of recycling to cover reuse, repair and repurposing inadvertently puts carbon-intensive collection and reprocessing of glass on an equal footing with not putting the glass in the bin at all and using it to store things instead of silly plastic Tupperware items.
If I do a work for hire whether it is building a deck or writing an app, I get paid and that's it.
If you do a work for hire, there's one person who's paying you. If you are an author, there isn't one person who just pays for everything -- you actually need to sell the book again and again to make back the time you spent on it.
If I create a new product, I get patent protection for 20 years and that's it.
There's a huge difference between copyright and patent.
Patent law was designed to prevent factory machinery designs being kept secret. Factory owners were inventing better and better machines, but keeping them secret so that they would retain competitive advantage. Some designs died with their owners. Patents protection was invented to encourage inventors to document their creations while preventing others from using them, but then to allow the next inventor to create a better machine without being blocked by the patent.
A book isn't a machine or technique, so it's not like technological advancement is hanging on being able to use a copyright work.
(That's not to say I don't think copyright terms aren't too long.)
However, Project Gutenberg does very very little to promote the fact that copyright terms are different in different countries. It would have been pretty trivial to set up the site with an awareness of international terms and dynamically generate correct copyright information for any users from outside of the US.
Leftie keyboards are harder to come by, and I used to work in a hot-desk office. Switching the mouse buttons and moving the mouse has been trivially easy in most places I've worked, so I've stuck with that.
Óbh-óbh.
Look, this is more like pointing out that you're measuring the total length of the world's rivers wrong when you measure the source of the Rio Negro and the Rio Amazon from source to sea, because for a fair portion of that length, the Rio Negro is the Amazon. If hydrological researchers were making such a fundamental error, someone would have to point it out.
But code researchers were making a completely analogous error, and it needed quantified. And now it is.
I'm a rightie, but my left's my mouse hand -- the bloody numerical keypad on most keyboards makes rightie-mousing a practical impossibility.
And this was considered to be nature, not nurture.
Weird nature point: lefties and ambidextrous people typically have less of a "sworl" on the crown of their heads, meaning their hair is more symmetrical at the back (righties' hair tends to spiral to behind the left ear before going downwards, lefties' hair tends to go straight down across the back.)
You realise us righties are closer to snails than lefties are...? You can see it in your hair.
When I fenced, there were no lefties in my club. I went to a competition. I met a leftie. I was utterly annihilated.
That's the hilarious part; duplicating code is also most of the purpose of github!!
Wetness detected in local river!
How about reading the point made in TFS?
The researchers did this study because Github is used as a source of data for identifying trends in computing. As they say, this duplication of code skews the results, and anyone wanting to draw serious conclusions from this data needs to account for this.
The important data isn't the headline, it's... well... the data. I'm hoping there will be less (virtual) printing of sensationalist "JavaScript is the best language in the world" headlines due to this prompting people to question the methodology.
Where was the outcry from farm workers when a steam engine could do the same work as a large number of farm hands?
Well it was in the fields, of course. Some people sabotaged the machinery, some people picketed the farms.
If it's not enough to be your sole source of income because of limited hours, that's one thing. If it's not enough to be your sole source of income when done full-time, it's not paying enough. If the job is worth employing someone to do, it's worth paying them enough that they can eat and not die of hunger on the job, as was common during the Industrial Revolution.
This isn't "the free market". Its clearly activity that is meant to deceive / cheat the consumer. One can argue its legalities, but it isn't "the free market" where 2 people are trading goods/services in fair manner.
The problem is that ignorance is considered a fair market force by many -- any price a customer is willing to pay is by nature fair.
The main benefit of regulated markets is that they stop ignorance being a market force, because they explicitly prohibit exploiting consumer ignorance. At the end of the day, we can't expect every consumer to carry out their own due diligence on every purchase they make -- it would be totally inefficient and wouldn't benefit wider society.
Who really wants free markets?
Of course they're happy that not letting competitors pick up their code for free and profit off it is stopping competitors picking up their code for free and profitting off it -- I hardly think that's what "chilling effect" means. They have produced something that is badly needed at considerable expense to themselves. They have made the source available for non-commercial uses, which is part self-promotion and part generosity, but mostly just a responsible, sensible move for something that claims to be secure. Security-by-obscurity doesn't protect Microsoft or Apple, and having the code available means they have to make damned sure they're genuinely secure.
Never mind the fact that the cost is out of this world
Yes, the cost of producing a secure operating system is pretty high. Hence the price of the product.
They may no understand licensing, but they (the people behind CopperheadOS) also don't understand hypocrisy.
CopperheadOS is based on Android (which they didn't create), which itself is based on the Linux kernel (which they also didn't create). They are perfectly happy to take the work of others and use it for their own benefit, but when someone else does that to THEM . . . . .ZOMG!!! IT'S TERRIBLE!! WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS!!!
STFU.
There is no hypocrisy in this.
Linux and Android provide a common "floor" that everyone can build from, in the same way that there is a massive base of shared public knowledge in science and engineering that we all tap into when we start making physical products.
The makers of Apache understood that the software they were all contributing to would offer benefits to private companies as well as the universities they worked for, and they understood that they were contributing to creating a shared knowledge base that had potential to make everyone's lives better -- their software went on to become more important to the entire world than they could ever have possibly dreamed. Even where people use servers other than Apache itself, the base level of performance was defined by Apache. Apache built the world we know, and its permissive license is part of the reason it could.
The makers of Android chose the Apache license knowing full well what it meant (was it Android Inc. who open-sourced it or Google?) and to use it exactly as the makers intended is in no way hypocritical.
Unless you think it's hypocritical that Android apps charge money having been built on a free platform and making extensive use of free APIs rather than talking direct to the hardware (which is impossible for an Android app to do anyway).
The only way a derivative work of an Apache-licensed package is unauthorised is if you neglect to credit the named copyright holders of the code you derived your version from. But if you credit the original authors, you are allowed to slap literally whatever license you like on it. As long as you are not claiming credit for having written code you haven't, object files are yours to distribute however you see fit.
everything in Wikipedia is sourced
[citation needed]
Touché, Monsieur Pussy Cat.
Not really. He was right in thinking that having him as a figurehead would have undermined a lot of what the idea was meant to achieve.
"Wikipedia is both an organization and a social movement,"
That, is why it fails.
Remember boys and girls,. citing Wikipedia is still a reason for an automatic fail for most university professors
That's irrelevant. First up, because everything in Wikipedia is sourced, you don't need to cite Wikipedia -- you can pick up the source and look it up in the library. Secondly, Wikipedia isn't disregarded as a citation source because it's normally inaccurate, but for two reasons: 1) it changes frequently, so it's too much work to verify it as a source and 2) the student could theoretically change it to say whatever they want to put in their essay.
Banning citing Wikipedia actually makes Wikipedia more reliable in the long term.
...there *are* a lot of phrases and words...
The move to the invariant "there's" is a legitimate and logical change in English. "There are..." originates in the Germanic verb-second rule that gives rise to archaic sentences such as "rarely do people write like this now" and "Old King Cole was a merry old soul and a merry old soul was he."
It has been quite a few centuries since verb-second ceased to be a productive rule in English, and the few remaining fossilised exceptions have slowly dropped out of use since.
Furthermore, we now have "it's me", "it's you" and "it's us", where the verb does not encode number, and this is really no different to switching to "there's"/"there is" as a fixed singular expression.
"Ain't" is a phonetic spelling of a mispronunciation of a contraction of "am not". From "amn't", the m and n merge (somewhat like "damn it" -> "dammit"), yielding "an't". Mispronouncing the vowel as a long "a" yields something that sounds like "ain't", and writing that down phonetically yields "ain't" itself.
What is your evidence of this? There's a lot of incompatible theories about "ain't".
English is an incredibly fault tolerant language. You can use completely the wrong sausage and everyone will still understand what you bacon. This is what makes the language so powerful and widely used. No other language in the world has the same robustness which is why it will remain the language of business for a long time.
Shullbit. All languages are fault tolerant to a similar degree, although the areas they are most tolerant in might vary. English has its limits -- for example, there is no way of resolving "I will do it yesterday" without directly asking for clarification (assuming you're not talking to Marty McFly, that is).
On this side of the Atlantic, this whole thread is marvellously ridiculous.