Perhaps we should require that before new technologies are licensed, deployed or sold, we need a technological impact statement. Like the environmental statements designed to make people aware that their surroundings could be affected by construction or research projects, a TIS would mean that before projects like the gene map are sold and distributed, ordinary people are aware of the technology and its possible impact on their lives and those of their children.
The fact is, we can never predict where technology will take us with any degree of accuracy. Could the Wright Bros have said, "well, in fifty years, our little POS contraption will develop into hypersonic spy planes that could observe the Soviet Union, so maybe we should keep this secret as to not upset the balance of power."
Could Tim Berners-Lee have said "gee, this little Web thing could be used to distribute pornography, so maybe I should keep it secret for a while longer."
Could Rob Malda have predicted that Slashdot would end up overloading web servers world-wide?
The answer to all is "no." To mandate some kind of TIS would not only be impossible, but it would be dangerous. We can't predict the course of technology, we can only adapt to it. Even without technology, life adapts, otherwise it wouldn't currently be around. Let me put it succinctly:
Need you even ask?! Of course you should. Politics effects every facet of your life, and you can either take control of it or let it run right over you.
As I said in the first article, the alternative to politics is a system where someone puts a gun to your head and makes all choices for you. That's not the kind of system I want, and I'd imagine that Mr. Katz would have some objections to it himeself. Yeah, politics is a dirty business, but it's the only way to preserve individual liberty.
Many of the problems of the Slashdot-reading community are political, just not in the way people think.
The ESR vs. RMS debate on Free Software - politics.
Those who advocate one Linux distro over another - politics.
The debate over the DCMA - politics.
The debate over Napster - politics.
One of the first criticisms levelled against Christianity was that it was too apolitical and that brought about the fall of the Roman Empire. To be honest, that's not an entirely inaccurate statement. We need to learn from that criticism. If we allow ourselves to get suckered into this notion that our vote doesn't matter, then we sign away the essential freedoms that we take for granted today. We're all effected by politics, so it is imperative that we take control of it.
You may argue that the two major party candidates don't represent you. Still, that doesn't mean that your vote is worthless. A vote for a third-party candidate will be noticed. (Believe me, I work for one of the major political parties and we're watching the Nader movement very closely.) You have the opportunity not only to pick a president, but others who can represent your special interests.
It's simple - either work with the system to enact positive change or allow yourself to be steamrolled by it. You may dislike politics, but you have the power to change it - don't let those who would want you to sacrifice that freedom convince you otherwise.
Sorry, but that idea won't accomplish a thing. Congressional staffers don't have much regard for e-mail, as anyone can send it without much work or thought.
If you wanted to send a real message, send a good-old fashioned snail mail message. From experience, nothing's more intimidating than seeing a very unusually large stack of letters from your constituents in your offices. A full mail box just doesn't have the same effect.
That being said, the idea is really a good one, just the methods are not the most effective.
He was the one who put forth from "anonymous" a bill attached to unrelated legislation to extend the term for drug patents. (ala the "as a work for hire" fiasco that took song rights from musicians). It's the least he could do after riding around in Schering-Plough's corporate jet, the ones who have the patent for Claritin that is about to expire. Too bad seniors (AARP) noticed because they have enough of a hard time as it is paying for prescriptions. It sort of makes the republican's plan for a prescription drug benifit ring hollow.
Actually, it was Linda Daschle, wife of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who lobbied on the behalf of the drug companies to pass the bill through.
Also, Sen. Hatch is the only member of government who has had the balls to stand up to Hilary Rosen in Congress and defend the doctrine of fair use. He's an artist himself, so he undertstands both the need to protect content creators as well as the need for people to be able to copy works they own.
As for the link, several Democratic senators were also involved in the copyright extensions. That, and if Disney were to have lost those trademarks, it would have lost the core of their business, costing a hell of a lot of jobs. Personally, the article shows that Democrats also supported the bill. And what the hell relevance does it have to any of this anyway?
"Can anybody cite a single interesting or important idea or argument that's emerged from the months of campaigning in the current U.S. presidential race?"
Um, have you been paying attention? The differences in ideologies between the major candidates and even the third-party candidates are huge. Voters have a real and substantive choice here, regardless of what they think of the political process. Hell, you have Ralph Nader who couldn't be more outside the mainstream and hs no corporate ties and could do better than anyone thinks.
School vouchers have the potential to totally alter the public educational system - for good or bad depending on who you ask. What could be more important for the future than the education of children?
The Supreme Court could very well be radically altered to the left or to the right depending on who gets elected.
Ralph Nader's underground campaign has the potential to be a surprise this election - a recent rally in Minneapolis garnered 10,000 people, almost as much as a major party candidate.
The future of Social Security could well be decided, even with the similarities of the Bush and Gore plans.
Ditto Medicare, prescription drugs, etc...
The entire thesis of Katz's article is just plain wrong. How many net-based campaigns have done a bit of political change without people actually getting off their butts and doing something. The whole idea that politics is irrelevant because of the Internet is like those who said that computers would replace schools - they haven't, they won't, and they can't.
There will always be politics. There will always be disagreements over who gets what, when, where, and how much.
The alternative to politics is a system where there are no decisions, no free thought, no choices, and no hope. Mr. Katz, you've railed against systems like that many times before - yet your proposals would lead exactly to what you despise.
Politics are what lets us fight injustice. Politics are what lets us fight things like the DCMA, the MPAA, and the RIAA. No amount of sitting behind a computer screen will ever fix those problems. You don't have to like politics, but you do have to live with it. It is those who actively take a stand that will decide the future, and the choice is clear: either be trampled by those who do realize this, or get organized and get involved.
Sega, Sony, and Nintendo all have entrenched markets in the console industry. While it isn't impossible to break into the market, what strategy do you have for competing with these three titans? What is it about Indrema that sets it apart from the rest of the crowd?
A related question: key to the success of any platform is developer support. What developers have pledged to code for the Indrema system? At the projected release date, how many games will there be, and what kind of games are you going after?
Open Source really doesn't need a set QA system, it already has one. It's called peer review.
Say Hacker X creates a program with obvious bugs. He/she releases it, and Hacker Y downloads it. Because Hacker Y has access to the source code, he/she can find the bug and fix it. That fix is then submitted back to Hacker X who then releases a new version.
Traditional QA systems would take forever to find all the bugs in a piece of software. The whole point of OSS is that it lets more eyeballs view the code and submit fixes, freeing the developer from some of the testing duties.
Now, I will grant you that the system isn't perfect - it requires at least one Hacker Y to find a fix the bug, or at least notice it. However, if OSS is supported by a community of members who are committed to making better software, then the system is more efficient than a traditional QA system. (Think of it as distributed QA.)
Open Source works like a capitalist economy. It works well without need for regulation. If something happens you don't like, then you have other choices. I think the simpler we make the whole process, the better.
I was just thinking (dangerous, I know) that perhaps this whole Carnivore debate is really just a smokescreen. After all, if you're suspected of being involved in a federal crime, how difficult is it to track your e-mail? I'm sure that if the FBI came in with a subpoena, they could easily set up an e-mail wiretap at the ISP level. They could try packet sniffing, set up a dummy DNS server to intercept their transmissions, all without infringing on the privacy of others. The fact that an open-source project can do the same does seem to indicate that they have something to hide.
What exactly is the rationale for Carnivore then? It's like wiretapping every phone in America then saying that they'll only turn it on with a court order... you'd never be able to trust them at their word. Why shouldn't the same protections that protect us from unauthorized wiretaps protect our e-mail?
The real purpose behind Carnivore is probably less about catching criminals, and more about government testing the waters. They can get by with an Echelon in other countries because the average American wouldn't care if we spied on France. But, what would be the reaction if Echelon were used for domestic surveillance? (Which only the FBI can legally do?) Carnivore probably isn't going to do much to fight crime, just lead to criminals forging their e-mails, getting multiple Hotmail accounts, and generally making it impossible to accurately trace.
Carnivore as a system is irrelevant. It's real purpose is to see how far the FBI can go in this area, one step more on the slippery slope towards a Big Brother police state. Perhaps the intentions of Carnivore are good, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with...
Want to see more of the DMCA? Vote Gore, the favorite of the MPAA!
Theoretically it's true, but is there a practical way of measuring the spin of an electron that finely? Wouldn't Heisenburg make it so that the electron would be both blank and fully formatted until you bothered to read it? Or would the process of reading the data actually alter the data on this disk?
That and I think an electron would be a bit too small for storage purposes... I have enough problems losing CD-Rs half the time... no less a storage media where I could only know the angular momentum or the location, but not both...
OK, let's go back to Composition 101 and see what the hell Katz is trying to say.
A. Big publishing corporations are bad because they're closed, stuffy, and don't give a rat's ass about the consumer.
B. List a bunch of books published by the above which are somewhat interactive, not at all stuffy, and target a distinct group of consumers.
Now, what's the point being made here? And what the hell does any of this have to do with e-books?
Look, e-books aren't going to be this great revolutionary thing that will rock the publishing world for the average consumer. For the writer, they're great as they let them not have to deal with the eggheads in New York and let them go direct to the reader. (see bookface.com for a great example of this) For the publisher, they're a nightmare for exactly the same reason.
But for the vast majority of people, they're not ever going to replace a real physical book except in limited applications. There's just too many centuries of mindshare for physical books. Maybe when the technology becomes cheap, portable, and ubitquitous they'll catch on. Just don't be holding your breath quite yet.
Once again, Katz makes a nice little rant against the corporate America that pays him, without ever making a hint of substance or understanding more than "big corporations are bad" and "geeks are good." If I wanted that kind of wooden mindless regurgitation I'd listen to an Al Gore speech.
First of all, IBM has done more with Java than Sun... one of the first useful Java applications I ever tried was their Java IRC client, which did everything an IRC client should. If anyone was going to do a quality Java implementation, the people at the IBM alphaworks would be the ones.
Also, one shouldn't dismiss the Open Source contribution to this. Having the ability to examine the kernel source in detail makes it that much easier to tailor your Java implementation so that it best integrates with the kernel. With the highly closed nature of Windows, developers have to guess how to best integrate with the complex APIs and SDKs of Windows.
Java may actually take off only about four years after it was supposed to be The Next Big Thing in programming languages. With APIs like Jini and Personal Java, Java may actually find a niche in PDAs and Internet Appliances...
The engineering behind nitrogen powered cars is pretty compelling, but there are some big drawbacks to using nitrogen as a vehicle fuel source. First and foremost is that nitrogen is very heavy. Imagine the weight of carrying a load of compressed liquid nitrogen, the necessary coolant to keep is liquid, the weight of the container, and the weight of the engine itself. Sure, nitrogen does deliver more power than batteries, but the power/weight ratio would seem to be prohibitive to me. Even factoring in the composite materials that would presumably be developed in the next 50 years, nitrogen just doesn't have the performance to justify the weight.
The fuel of the future, IMHO is hydrogen. Long maligned for the Hidenburg disaster, hydrogen is a fuel source with a lot of potential. (In fact, it was *not* hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg disaster. Static electricity discharged between sections of the outer skin covering, igniting the highly flammible weatherproofing compound that covered the skin of the Hindenburg. That's why the fire was described as a bright orange - a hydrogen fire would be virtually colorless. The myth of a hydrogen accident on the Hindenburg has attached a stigma to hydrogen that is based on poor evidence.)
The way a car hydrogen engine could be made safe is through the use of advanced carbon nanotube technology. These nanotubes can trap the hydrogen molecules, making them safe to transport. The holy grail of hydrogen/nanotube research is a nanotube that can hold 65% of its own weight in hydrogen. Above that figure, hydrogen fuel cells become economically feasible. Hydrogen is a clean burning fuel that provides a great deal of energy and can power a car with greater efficiency than electric motors or gasoline engines. If someone can create a nanotube storage system (and there have been rumors that breakthroughs are pending - they're at least up to 10% hydrogen/carbon) then hydrogen will become the fuel of choice for automobiles.
Remember, Lucasfilm is actually disseminating *dis*information about the prequels to keep all the online sources off the trail. I'll be willing to be that this title isn't even close to the one that will be released. (Anyone remember "Balance of the Force" that was absolutely going to be the title for Episode 1.) Anyone remember the Darth Bane/Christopher Walken rumor? Gary Coleman playing Yoda? (OK, so I made that one up... so sue me... oh, wait, if I ended up with Judge Kaplan I'd probably lose... so don't sue me!)
What will be a sure bet is that whatever title is picked will have never been guessed before. Personally, I'm going for "The Prequel Formerly Known as Star Wars Episode II"...
I recently did a study of the Internet and voting habits... it's not anywhere near publishable yet, but I'll get to it eventually. Basically, what I found is that Internet voting is probably a long way off in terms of security and economic feasibility. However, what the Internet will do is allow easier and cheaper campaigning and donations. Ironically enough, the two candidates who really "got it" in terms of leveraging the Internet were Bill Bradley and John McCain. (McCain made a *huge* return on investment from his web site through online donations.) Bush's web site did very well for him in terms of donations, as did Gore's.
As for where the major candidates stand on technology, look at their economic and political views. IMHYCIAMLCO (in my humble yet completely informed and most likely correct opinion) Bush actually represents the best hope for maintaining Internet freedom. His brand of laissez-faire capitalism will ensure that bad things like sales taxes on net purchases don't occur. His moral views make him a possible supporter of mandatory filtering, but I think he'll probably be more likely to let individual libraries and schools decide. (Remember, Republicans aren't the tools of big business like a lot of people think - it was Orrin Hatch, a Republican, who finally stood up to the RIAA and Hilary Rosen.)
Al Gore is probably more "in tune" with technology, but he's also more likely to use the net as a source of tax revenue, which would severely damage e-commerce. He's also just as likely as Bush, if not more so to enact mandatory filtering legislation. Gore's activist-government views are probably in the long run bad for the Internet. (Want to see DeCSS go by-by? Gore's your man. The Democrats are heavily funded by the big studios and record companies. The RIAA and the MPAA members are all big Democratic contributors.)
Buchanan probably thinks computers are tools of Satan. He'd definately not raise internet taxes, but he'd probably enact draconian censoring legislation.
Nader would probably be fairly hands-off in Internet issues, which makes him a good candidate on this issue. I disagree with 99% of what he says, but at least he's honest about his liberal philosophies.
Well, it looks like I was *way* off on that one. The press release I had made it looks as though this would be only released to game companies, not for public use.
Evidently what Autodesk/Discreet are really doing is seeding the market. The same people who make a quick-and-dirty model in Quake today could be graphic designers and MAX onsumers tomorrow. It's basically acknowledging that a lot of people use illegal copies of MAX for this already, so why not use that for marketing advantage.
You have to hand it to Discreet, this is a good way of marketing your product early on.
Sorry, kiddies, but this is not going to be a thing you can just download and play with. You have to be a game developer, and I mean a professional studio to get this. I seriously doubt that individual developers will be able to legally get a copy of this. My guess is that there's probably other strings attached as well. A company like Autodesk ain't just gonna let this thing go for nothing to whoever wants it.
I get demo CD of 3D Studio MAX frequently - not demos of the program, but basically a nice Director-made ad for it. Autodesk puts it out to all prospective clients. (I can't even remember asking for it...) It's rather nice, but I'm a LightWave man, and I detest the MAX interface. (Although its got some very nice features.)
So, this announcement really doesn't mean a whole lot from what I understand. Only a select few developers (probably companies that either are on the fence about MAX or use another package like Maya or LightWave) will get the free version. If you want a free (as in beer) 3D package that actually is capable of some high-end stuff, use Blender.
The concept of limiting US access to Russian space hardware really irks me. What the earlier restriction basically did was blackmail Russia into accepting the US terms. Russia needs Western capital to support their space program, and this law used that need to protect an American monopoly. This is no different from Microsoft tactics, using an organizations weight to manipulate the internal affairs of another country. Forcing Russian companies to make costs no more than 7.5% less than Western prices under the threat of losing that critical business seems, at least on the surface to be nuts. It hurts Russia, meaning we have to continue to pour money into their economy through non-job-creating means such as foreign aid and IMF loans, and it hurts American companies who need cheaper access to space.
Thank heavens that the Clinton administration... (wait, that's not right! The Senate has to legally ratify such treaties... that means that this was a bipartisan effort. Sorry, Bill, but you ain't gonna find a legacy here.) got something right. These restrictive and punitive protectionist measures only hurt our economy as well as foreign ones. This is certainly A Good Thing(tm) for both the US and Russia.
I know it's easy to bash Intellectual Property, in fact, the people responsible for perpetuating it are mostly to blame for this. However, the basis behind intellectual property is still sound. The whole point is that people should be able to receive compensation for their ideas, should their ideas be deemed worthy of compensation. In theory this is true, artists and thinkers deserve to be rewarded with their work and these rewards help ensure that their work continues.
Now, this also leads to the problems we're facing now - IP being taken to a far extreme of what it rightly should be. I think that patenting the human genome is explicitly wrong, I believe that software should be build at least to open standards and preferably to Open Source, and I think that people should have free access to governmental information. On the other hand, if we just ditch the whole idea of IP, then it is going to hurt artists and thinkers. Yes, the current system of IP is horrendously broken, but throwing it out is a bad way of fixing it. The simple fact is that artists need some kind of support for their work. Granted, a true artist or thinker produces their work becuase they love to do it, but the whole purpose of the IP system is that they can have the level of support they need to concentrate solely on their craft.
Already, IP is changing. Napster was just the first step, the old channels of IP distribution are falling down, and rightly so. However, we have to remember that we need to somehow support the arts. I think that a nice micropayment system would be a great first step. Already Steven King's begun his own experiment in decentralized IP. The fact is that the old gatekeepers of IP, the RIAA, the MPAA, the big publishers Microsoft, all of them are rapidly becoming less and less relevant. What worries me as a producer of art (I'm a musician, and I have released several 3D models into the public domain) is will this shortchange the artist? I think Napster can work for new talent, I've personally supported artists via MP3.com, but I still don't see anyone able to make a living off these services yet.
So, what's the compromise going to be? I forsee a new patronage system coming out of all this. Back in the early days of the first artistic revolution, just after the Renaissance, artists would be supported by wealthy patrons. These patrons would support the artist and many of them allowed them a great latitude in what they could produce. Look at VA Linux and Slashdot... VA Linux is a patron to Slashdot, they foot the bill in the interest of the community, and they give them editorial freedom.
But there lies the catch... even when Napster wins and music is cheap and/or free, are we really better off? Look at the people who see a conspiracy between VA Linux and Slashdot, imagine what they would say if all art is sponsored that way. Also, would that guarantee sufficient funding for the arts and sciences? Public TV works this way, and look at how they're doing financially. We certainly won't see any less pandering to popular interests, even if the RIAA and the MPAA and their ilk disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't mean that we'd lose crap like the Backstreet Boys. It would just come from a different source.
So, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. The current IP system is screwing the consumer over through poor legislation and litigation, along with the content producers who are being held back in much the same way. Get rid of IP altogether and we're just as screwed, if nobody can make a living off their work, a lot of people aren't going to go through the trouble and effort to distribute it. Some will do it for the love of art or science, but they won't be able to popularize it effectively and will have to juggle a lot more issues, all of which will distract them from that creative process.
In the end, we'll have a compromise between the two. Art is always going to be around, but there needs to be a level of support. I think that artists like Chuck D and Steven King have the right idea, get rid of the middle man, go direct and leverage technology. That way you get the best of both worlds, consumers get freedom to choose, and the artist gets support. Of course, all this counts on that support emerging from the consumer. We'll probably see the status quo remain, albeit changed, for quite some time.
In other words, support your artists. If you hear a song you like, buy it. Go to concerts, attend plays, get off your ass and support people who actually care about their art. Nine tenths of the problems with IP could be cured if people just stopped giving into those who are corrupting the system. Support *good* Intellectual Property. IP itself isn't really the problem, it's the way in which it's been mishandled and corrupted. Through these steps, we can preserve both the freedom and choice we want as consumers without losing the ability of the artist to support their work.
Can you name one substantial scientific benefit gained in the last 10 years of manned space flight? The last 20?
In the last 10 years Shuttle flights have been responsible for the Hubble Space Telescope - giving us a much clearer understanding of our universe and how we fit into it. The Hubble needed human servicing to have ever completed its mission.
We've been able to study the effects of spaceflight on the human body, which mimic many of the changes in the aging process. If we're going into space, we need that kind of information.
We've been able to monitor and observe earth-bound phenomena to an extent that has never before been possible, and would not have been possible with robotic craft.
We've given people something to hope for. Sure, robotic missions are great and they bring us loads of scientific data at no human risk, but they lack something that the human imagination needs. No robotic explorer will ever overshadow Neil Armstrong first setting his foot down on a foreign body in space. Who cares about the Russian Luna and American Surveyor probes after that? The world's attention was focused on space because that was a human being out there.
How about taking a close look at Pluto, which we still know almost nothing about? How about a closer look at Europa, an excellent candidate for the presence of life? How about trying to land a probe on Venus capable of surviving more than a few hours?
Isn't the Pluto Express mission set for a launch date in a few years?
There are already plans to revisit Europa, with a craft that can get below the ice and actually settle the life issue.
A probe to Venus would be very difficult to lift out of Earths gravity well. We'd almost have to build something that heavy in space - where could that take place? Why a space station, of course?
Granted, the ISS isn't that big a leap, but it is a leap. The ISS is a worthwhile project, and will continue to advance humanity's progress to the stars.
Well, there's a lot of people saying "so what" to this news. Yes, the ISS is very late, and yes it's not a quantum leap, but it is the first steps towards permanent occupation of space.
It's good for the US, because we now have a permanent base in orbit. That means we can start testing the technologies for longer space flights that the shuttle couldn't. If we're going to go to Mars, we need to know more about reactions to weightlessness, micrometeroid protection, and other issues. The ISS also lets us increase the scientific workload in space - even a small telescope on the ISS would beat the best on Earth because of the freedom from atmospheric disortion and pollution. The ISS is the next logical step if we're to go anywhere in space.
Those who say that Russia is poor and shouldn't be in the space business - how many jobs does this create in the Russian aerospace field? You have engineers and scientists right down to toolmakers and welders who are employed because of this project. One of the few profitable things that the Russians have in their economy is aerospace. Energiya rocket boosters are very reliable and provide a considerable stream of income. The Russians are leading the charge in finding alternate sources of income, their lack of hard currency means that they have to search for outside investment. They're finding that by opening up things like Mir to commercial interests they may be able to keep it in orbit for a few years more. The Russians were the first to sell advertising in space - Pizza Hut had an ad on the booster that lifted Zvezda into orbit.
In the end, there are some very solid practical reasons why the ISS program is beneficial. Unlike most foreign aid we give to Russia, at least the ISS program creates jobs for Russians, as well as Americans. This attitude that anything related to scientific process steals resources away from the poor is completely wrong.
First of all, I'll agree with those who say that this question makes very little sense. From what I can gather, there are two main thrusts to this question. The first involves "intellectual property" and the second involves devaluation. Both questions can be answered simply: the market decides.
First of all, you can theoretically charge whatever you want for music/movies/etc. I say theoretically because nobody in their right mind will pay $80 for a Metallica CD. The market has pretty much decided that people will pay around $12-$18 bucks for a CD on the average. Now, with Napster, the market is undergoing a sea change. Digital distribution means that the consumer doesn't have to pay $12-$18 for the same music. Now, there has to be a balance between free (Napster) and ripoff (RIAA). It's all a matter of time. Somehow, people will figure out how to make money of MP3 and Napster. Those that charge too much will get axed out by consumers, those who charge too little will starve to death. In the end, the market will tend towards equilibrium until the next Napster comes along to change the system. So basically, any commerical enterprise in a free market system is driven by the consumer. People will pay what they want, be it a micropayment for a single song, or $80 for one of those Diablo II collector's edition sets. (One wonders if Blizzard knew that everyone in their dog would buy this game, so the jacked up the price $10-$20 above normal knowing that the consumers would still take it.)
Now, the second part of the question. Obviously, you're not going to pay as much for an old Abba CD as you would for Britney Spears or whatever moron is on the top 25 this week. Everything devaluates unless it's wine or Renoirs. Once again, the market is going to decide what price they're willing to pay. That's why they have bargain bins.
Now, in the case of hardware and other equipment, that's also a real no-brainer. If you're buying from Bob's House of Komputers, yeah, you're probably not goning to get any support after the three second lifespan of the business. Once again, caveat emptor. That's why name brands are always arond. Sure, you may pay up the wazoo for a Sony, but you know that they're going to be around for a while.
Finally, here's the gratuitous Open Source plug. Because older hardware has probably already been hacked, you can usually find OSS drivers for it. Yeah, they won't be shiny and new, but they'll work, and they might even have some developers still working on them. In the end, even an old 486 has value. My POS 486 built by companies that no longer exist still serves as my OpenBSD firewall. Once again, the market (me) places value in a commodity (that POS 486) based on what they perceive it to be worth (not much, but I'll still pay a few bucks for it).
So, now I've managed to praise both market-driven laissez-faire capitalism and Open Source in one diatribe. All I need to do is put in a plug for gun rights (NRA4EVER) and mention how in the post-Columbine world geeks are perceived as social outcasts and I'll have managed to impersonate ESR *and* Jon Katz. If I only had a Beowulf cluster of petrified young actresses pouring hot grits down my pants I could be a one-man/....
First of all, this law is more than likely constitutional. I don't see how its a violation of free speech or free association. If that were unconstitutional, then not allowing minors into porn theaters would be unconstitutional. It's best to actually read the Constitution and have at least a working understanding of it before using it as a blanket defense.
That being out of the way, I belive that this law is probably doomed to a quick death. Simply put, it will kill arcades throughout the city. Games like Mortal Kombat and its ilk are the bread and butter of these places. Denying the vast majority of the customers access to those machines will seriously hurt the bottom line.
Even should that first supposition be wrong, having a roped off section behind a curtain with a big bouncer not allowing kids in is sure going to be a great draw for families, isn't it? Who in their right minds would have their kid's birthday party in a place like that? Even those who don't play those games will be effected by this asinine piece of legislation.
Personally, if I were an Indianapolis arcade owner, I'd tell the city to frag themselves and move to the suburbs out of the way. Consider the lost tax revenue plus the cost of enforcing the law would be rediculous. There's no way that the city can reasonably expect this law to stay on the books without it having a negative and demonstratable effect on the city. This law is doomed to failure, and anyone with half a clue should have been able to figure it out.
If I were an Indianapolis resident, I'd seriously thinking about a recall petition.
Well, I've used Blender, and I find two things about it I dislike. - The interface - The rendering engine
Now, that doesn't mean that it's not worth getting - you can't really beat it for the price. But those who say it can compete with the likes of LightWave and 3D Studio are decieving themselves. Blender needs a lot of work, and going the open source route is probably a good decision for getting that done. Here's a few of the features that Blender would need to be competitive:
- Volumetrics (Something akin to LightWave's Hyper Voxels or Afterburn would be good to see.) - Better shader support, and better shaders (Once again, there are some very good OSS shaders available, all someone would need to do port them over. This could be a good project for someone looking for one.) - Better interface. (Personally, I like the LightWave/Softimage style of dialogs rather than the cluttered look of other programs. In the end, the ability to customize the interface would probably be the best course of action.) - Better render engine (Things like better lighting and antialiasing need to be implemented before Blender can hit the big times. Even better would be support for things like radiosity.)
Blender represents a good first step towards 3D on Linux. With some of the things I mentioned above, and other enhancements, it could very well come to challenge other 3D packages. If I had the time and the ability I'd love to work on some of these things myself. Still, there are a lot of OSS programmers who will invariably see the opportunities here and jump on them. That should show people why open development is a superior method of software engineering!
Slashdot Mirror
...this one takes the cake...
Perhaps we should require that before new technologies are licensed, deployed or sold, we need a technological impact statement. Like the environmental statements designed to make people aware that their surroundings could be affected by construction or research projects, a TIS would mean that before projects like the gene map are sold and distributed, ordinary people are aware of the technology and its possible impact on their lives and those of their children.
The fact is, we can never predict where technology will take us with any degree of accuracy. Could the Wright Bros have said, "well, in fifty years, our little POS contraption will develop into hypersonic spy planes that could observe the Soviet Union, so maybe we should keep this secret as to not upset the balance of power."
Could Tim Berners-Lee have said "gee, this little Web thing could be used to distribute pornography, so maybe I should keep it secret for a while longer."
Could Rob Malda have predicted that Slashdot would end up overloading web servers world-wide?
The answer to all is "no." To mandate some kind of TIS would not only be impossible, but it would be dangerous. We can't predict the course of technology, we can only adapt to it. Even without technology, life adapts, otherwise it wouldn't currently be around. Let me put it succinctly:
The greatest risk is not taking one at all.
"Should I care about politics?"
Need you even ask?! Of course you should. Politics effects every facet of your life, and you can either take control of it or let it run right over you.
As I said in the first article, the alternative to politics is a system where someone puts a gun to your head and makes all choices for you. That's not the kind of system I want, and I'd imagine that Mr. Katz would have some objections to it himeself. Yeah, politics is a dirty business, but it's the only way to preserve individual liberty.
Many of the problems of the Slashdot-reading community are political, just not in the way people think.
One of the first criticisms levelled against Christianity was that it was too apolitical and that brought about the fall of the Roman Empire. To be honest, that's not an entirely inaccurate statement. We need to learn from that criticism. If we allow ourselves to get suckered into this notion that our vote doesn't matter, then we sign away the essential freedoms that we take for granted today. We're all effected by politics, so it is imperative that we take control of it.
You may argue that the two major party candidates don't represent you. Still, that doesn't mean that your vote is worthless. A vote for a third-party candidate will be noticed. (Believe me, I work for one of the major political parties and we're watching the Nader movement very closely.) You have the opportunity not only to pick a president, but others who can represent your special interests.
It's simple - either work with the system to enact positive change or allow yourself to be steamrolled by it. You may dislike politics, but you have the power to change it - don't let those who would want you to sacrifice that freedom convince you otherwise.
Sorry, but that idea won't accomplish a thing. Congressional staffers don't have much regard for e-mail, as anyone can send it without much work or thought.
If you wanted to send a real message, send a good-old fashioned snail mail message. From experience, nothing's more intimidating than seeing a very unusually large stack of letters from your constituents in your offices. A full mail box just doesn't have the same effect.
That being said, the idea is really a good one, just the methods are not the most effective.
He was the one who put forth from "anonymous" a bill attached to unrelated legislation to extend the term for drug patents. (ala the "as a work for hire" fiasco that took song rights from musicians). It's the least he could do after riding around in Schering-Plough's corporate jet, the ones who have the patent for Claritin that is about to expire. Too bad seniors (AARP) noticed because they have enough of a hard time as it is paying for prescriptions. It sort of makes the republican's plan for a prescription drug benifit ring hollow.
Actually, it was Linda Daschle, wife of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle who lobbied on the behalf of the drug companies to pass the bill through.
Also, Sen. Hatch is the only member of government who has had the balls to stand up to Hilary Rosen in Congress and defend the doctrine of fair use. He's an artist himself, so he undertstands both the need to protect content creators as well as the need for people to be able to copy works they own.
As for the link, several Democratic senators were also involved in the copyright extensions. That, and if Disney were to have lost those trademarks, it would have lost the core of their business, costing a hell of a lot of jobs. Personally, the article shows that Democrats also supported the bill. And what the hell relevance does it have to any of this anyway?
"Can anybody cite a single interesting or important idea or argument that's emerged from the months of campaigning in the current U.S. presidential race?"
Um, have you been paying attention? The differences in ideologies between the major candidates and even the third-party candidates are huge. Voters have a real and substantive choice here, regardless of what they think of the political process. Hell, you have Ralph Nader who couldn't be more outside the mainstream and hs no corporate ties and could do better than anyone thinks.
The entire thesis of Katz's article is just plain wrong. How many net-based campaigns have done a bit of political change without people actually getting off their butts and doing something. The whole idea that politics is irrelevant because of the Internet is like those who said that computers would replace schools - they haven't, they won't, and they can't.
There will always be politics. There will always be disagreements over who gets what, when, where, and how much.
The alternative to politics is a system where there are no decisions, no free thought, no choices, and no hope. Mr. Katz, you've railed against systems like that many times before - yet your proposals would lead exactly to what you despise.
Politics are what lets us fight injustice. Politics are what lets us fight things like the DCMA, the MPAA, and the RIAA. No amount of sitting behind a computer screen will ever fix those problems. You don't have to like politics, but you do have to live with it. It is those who actively take a stand that will decide the future, and the choice is clear: either be trampled by those who do realize this, or get organized and get involved.
Sega, Sony, and Nintendo all have entrenched markets in the console industry. While it isn't impossible to break into the market, what strategy do you have for competing with these three titans? What is it about Indrema that sets it apart from the rest of the crowd?
A related question: key to the success of any platform is developer support. What developers have pledged to code for the Indrema system? At the projected release date, how many games will there be, and what kind of games are you going after?
Open Source really doesn't need a set QA system, it already has one. It's called peer review. Say Hacker X creates a program with obvious bugs. He/she releases it, and Hacker Y downloads it. Because Hacker Y has access to the source code, he/she can find the bug and fix it. That fix is then submitted back to Hacker X who then releases a new version. Traditional QA systems would take forever to find all the bugs in a piece of software. The whole point of OSS is that it lets more eyeballs view the code and submit fixes, freeing the developer from some of the testing duties. Now, I will grant you that the system isn't perfect - it requires at least one Hacker Y to find a fix the bug, or at least notice it. However, if OSS is supported by a community of members who are committed to making better software, then the system is more efficient than a traditional QA system. (Think of it as distributed QA.) Open Source works like a capitalist economy. It works well without need for regulation. If something happens you don't like, then you have other choices. I think the simpler we make the whole process, the better.
I was just thinking (dangerous, I know) that perhaps this whole Carnivore debate is really just a smokescreen. After all, if you're suspected of being involved in a federal crime, how difficult is it to track your e-mail? I'm sure that if the FBI came in with a subpoena, they could easily set up an e-mail wiretap at the ISP level. They could try packet sniffing, set up a dummy DNS server to intercept their transmissions, all without infringing on the privacy of others. The fact that an open-source project can do the same does seem to indicate that they have something to hide.
What exactly is the rationale for Carnivore then? It's like wiretapping every phone in America then saying that they'll only turn it on with a court order... you'd never be able to trust them at their word. Why shouldn't the same protections that protect us from unauthorized wiretaps protect our e-mail?
The real purpose behind Carnivore is probably less about catching criminals, and more about government testing the waters. They can get by with an Echelon in other countries because the average American wouldn't care if we spied on France. But, what would be the reaction if Echelon were used for domestic surveillance? (Which only the FBI can legally do?) Carnivore probably isn't going to do much to fight crime, just lead to criminals forging their e-mails, getting multiple Hotmail accounts, and generally making it impossible to accurately trace.
Carnivore as a system is irrelevant. It's real purpose is to see how far the FBI can go in this area, one step more on the slippery slope towards a Big Brother police state. Perhaps the intentions of Carnivore are good, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with...
Want to see more of the DMCA? Vote Gore, the favorite of the MPAA!
Theoretically it's true, but is there a practical way of measuring the spin of an electron that finely? Wouldn't Heisenburg make it so that the electron would be both blank and fully formatted until you bothered to read it? Or would the process of reading the data actually alter the data on this disk?
That and I think an electron would be a bit too small for storage purposes... I have enough problems losing CD-Rs half the time... no less a storage media where I could only know the angular momentum or the location, but not both...
OK, let's go back to Composition 101 and see what the hell Katz is trying to say.
A. Big publishing corporations are bad because they're closed, stuffy, and don't give a rat's ass about the consumer.
B. List a bunch of books published by the above which are somewhat interactive, not at all stuffy, and target a distinct group of consumers.
Now, what's the point being made here? And what the hell does any of this have to do with e-books?
Look, e-books aren't going to be this great revolutionary thing that will rock the publishing world for the average consumer. For the writer, they're great as they let them not have to deal with the eggheads in New York and let them go direct to the reader. (see bookface.com for a great example of this) For the publisher, they're a nightmare for exactly the same reason.
But for the vast majority of people, they're not ever going to replace a real physical book except in limited applications. There's just too many centuries of mindshare for physical books. Maybe when the technology becomes cheap, portable, and ubitquitous they'll catch on. Just don't be holding your breath quite yet.
Once again, Katz makes a nice little rant against the corporate America that pays him, without ever making a hint of substance or understanding more than "big corporations are bad" and "geeks are good." If I wanted that kind of wooden mindless regurgitation I'd listen to an Al Gore speech.
First of all, IBM has done more with Java than Sun... one of the first useful Java applications I ever tried was their Java IRC client, which did everything an IRC client should. If anyone was going to do a quality Java implementation, the people at the IBM alphaworks would be the ones.
Also, one shouldn't dismiss the Open Source contribution to this. Having the ability to examine the kernel source in detail makes it that much easier to tailor your Java implementation so that it best integrates with the kernel. With the highly closed nature of Windows, developers have to guess how to best integrate with the complex APIs and SDKs of Windows.
Java may actually take off only about four years after it was supposed to be The Next Big Thing in programming languages. With APIs like Jini and Personal Java, Java may actually find a niche in PDAs and Internet Appliances...
The engineering behind nitrogen powered cars is pretty compelling, but there are some big drawbacks to using nitrogen as a vehicle fuel source. First and foremost is that nitrogen is very heavy. Imagine the weight of carrying a load of compressed liquid nitrogen, the necessary coolant to keep is liquid, the weight of the container, and the weight of the engine itself. Sure, nitrogen does deliver more power than batteries, but the power/weight ratio would seem to be prohibitive to me. Even factoring in the composite materials that would presumably be developed in the next 50 years, nitrogen just doesn't have the performance to justify the weight.
The fuel of the future, IMHO is hydrogen. Long maligned for the Hidenburg disaster, hydrogen is a fuel source with a lot of potential. (In fact, it was *not* hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg disaster. Static electricity discharged between sections of the outer skin covering, igniting the highly flammible weatherproofing compound that covered the skin of the Hindenburg. That's why the fire was described as a bright orange - a hydrogen fire would be virtually colorless. The myth of a hydrogen accident on the Hindenburg has attached a stigma to hydrogen that is based on poor evidence.)
The way a car hydrogen engine could be made safe is through the use of advanced carbon nanotube technology. These nanotubes can trap the hydrogen molecules, making them safe to transport. The holy grail of hydrogen/nanotube research is a nanotube that can hold 65% of its own weight in hydrogen. Above that figure, hydrogen fuel cells become economically feasible. Hydrogen is a clean burning fuel that provides a great deal of energy and can power a car with greater efficiency than electric motors or gasoline engines. If someone can create a nanotube storage system (and there have been rumors that breakthroughs are pending - they're at least up to 10% hydrogen/carbon) then hydrogen will become the fuel of choice for automobiles.
Um... no...
Remember, Lucasfilm is actually disseminating *dis*information about the prequels to keep all the online sources off the trail. I'll be willing to be that this title isn't even close to the one that will be released. (Anyone remember "Balance of the Force" that was absolutely going to be the title for Episode 1.) Anyone remember the Darth Bane/Christopher Walken rumor? Gary Coleman playing Yoda? (OK, so I made that one up... so sue me... oh, wait, if I ended up with Judge Kaplan I'd probably lose... so don't sue me!)
What will be a sure bet is that whatever title is picked will have never been guessed before. Personally, I'm going for "The Prequel Formerly Known as Star Wars Episode II"...
A point well taken... I should have said "push through legislation" or "propose legislation".
I recently did a study of the Internet and voting habits... it's not anywhere near publishable yet, but I'll get to it eventually. Basically, what I found is that Internet voting is probably a long way off in terms of security and economic feasibility. However, what the Internet will do is allow easier and cheaper campaigning and donations. Ironically enough, the two candidates who really "got it" in terms of leveraging the Internet were Bill Bradley and John McCain. (McCain made a *huge* return on investment from his web site through online donations.) Bush's web site did very well for him in terms of donations, as did Gore's.
As for where the major candidates stand on technology, look at their economic and political views. IMHYCIAMLCO (in my humble yet completely informed and most likely correct opinion) Bush actually represents the best hope for maintaining Internet freedom. His brand of laissez-faire capitalism will ensure that bad things like sales taxes on net purchases don't occur. His moral views make him a possible supporter of mandatory filtering, but I think he'll probably be more likely to let individual libraries and schools decide. (Remember, Republicans aren't the tools of big business like a lot of people think - it was Orrin Hatch, a Republican, who finally stood up to the RIAA and Hilary Rosen.)
Al Gore is probably more "in tune" with technology, but he's also more likely to use the net as a source of tax revenue, which would severely damage e-commerce. He's also just as likely as Bush, if not more so to enact mandatory filtering legislation. Gore's activist-government views are probably in the long run bad for the Internet. (Want to see DeCSS go by-by? Gore's your man. The Democrats are heavily funded by the big studios and record companies. The RIAA and the MPAA members are all big Democratic contributors.)
Buchanan probably thinks computers are tools of Satan. He'd definately not raise internet taxes, but he'd probably enact draconian censoring legislation.
Nader would probably be fairly hands-off in Internet issues, which makes him a good candidate on this issue. I disagree with 99% of what he says, but at least he's honest about his liberal philosophies.
Well, it looks like I was *way* off on that one. The press release I had made it looks as though this would be only released to game companies, not for public use.
Evidently what Autodesk/Discreet are really doing is seeding the market. The same people who make a quick-and-dirty model in Quake today could be graphic designers and MAX onsumers tomorrow. It's basically acknowledging that a lot of people use illegal copies of MAX for this already, so why not use that for marketing advantage.
You have to hand it to Discreet, this is a good way of marketing your product early on.
Sorry, kiddies, but this is not going to be a thing you can just download and play with. You have to be a game developer, and I mean a professional studio to get this. I seriously doubt that individual developers will be able to legally get a copy of this. My guess is that there's probably other strings attached as well. A company like Autodesk ain't just gonna let this thing go for nothing to whoever wants it.
I get demo CD of 3D Studio MAX frequently - not demos of the program, but basically a nice Director-made ad for it. Autodesk puts it out to all prospective clients. (I can't even remember asking for it...) It's rather nice, but I'm a LightWave man, and I detest the MAX interface. (Although its got some very nice features.)
So, this announcement really doesn't mean a whole lot from what I understand. Only a select few developers (probably companies that either are on the fence about MAX or use another package like Maya or LightWave) will get the free version. If you want a free (as in beer) 3D package that actually is capable of some high-end stuff, use Blender.
The concept of limiting US access to Russian space hardware really irks me. What the earlier restriction basically did was blackmail Russia into accepting the US terms. Russia needs Western capital to support their space program, and this law used that need to protect an American monopoly. This is no different from Microsoft tactics, using an organizations weight to manipulate the internal affairs of another country. Forcing Russian companies to make costs no more than 7.5% less than Western prices under the threat of losing that critical business seems, at least on the surface to be nuts. It hurts Russia, meaning we have to continue to pour money into their economy through non-job-creating means such as foreign aid and IMF loans, and it hurts American companies who need cheaper access to space.
Thank heavens that the Clinton administration... (wait, that's not right! The Senate has to legally ratify such treaties... that means that this was a bipartisan effort. Sorry, Bill, but you ain't gonna find a legacy here.) got something right. These restrictive and punitive protectionist measures only hurt our economy as well as foreign ones. This is certainly A Good Thing(tm) for both the US and Russia.
I know it's easy to bash Intellectual Property, in fact, the people responsible for perpetuating it are mostly to blame for this. However, the basis behind intellectual property is still sound. The whole point is that people should be able to receive compensation for their ideas, should their ideas be deemed worthy of compensation. In theory this is true, artists and thinkers deserve to be rewarded with their work and these rewards help ensure that their work continues.
Now, this also leads to the problems we're facing now - IP being taken to a far extreme of what it rightly should be. I think that patenting the human genome is explicitly wrong, I believe that software should be build at least to open standards and preferably to Open Source, and I think that people should have free access to governmental information. On the other hand, if we just ditch the whole idea of IP, then it is going to hurt artists and thinkers. Yes, the current system of IP is horrendously broken, but throwing it out is a bad way of fixing it. The simple fact is that artists need some kind of support for their work. Granted, a true artist or thinker produces their work becuase they love to do it, but the whole purpose of the IP system is that they can have the level of support they need to concentrate solely on their craft.
Already, IP is changing. Napster was just the first step, the old channels of IP distribution are falling down, and rightly so. However, we have to remember that we need to somehow support the arts. I think that a nice micropayment system would be a great first step. Already Steven King's begun his own experiment in decentralized IP. The fact is that the old gatekeepers of IP, the RIAA, the MPAA, the big publishers Microsoft, all of them are rapidly becoming less and less relevant. What worries me as a producer of art (I'm a musician, and I have released several 3D models into the public domain) is will this shortchange the artist? I think Napster can work for new talent, I've personally supported artists via MP3.com, but I still don't see anyone able to make a living off these services yet.
So, what's the compromise going to be? I forsee a new patronage system coming out of all this. Back in the early days of the first artistic revolution, just after the Renaissance, artists would be supported by wealthy patrons. These patrons would support the artist and many of them allowed them a great latitude in what they could produce. Look at VA Linux and Slashdot... VA Linux is a patron to Slashdot, they foot the bill in the interest of the community, and they give them editorial freedom.
But there lies the catch... even when Napster wins and music is cheap and/or free, are we really better off? Look at the people who see a conspiracy between VA Linux and Slashdot, imagine what they would say if all art is sponsored that way. Also, would that guarantee sufficient funding for the arts and sciences? Public TV works this way, and look at how they're doing financially. We certainly won't see any less pandering to popular interests, even if the RIAA and the MPAA and their ilk disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't mean that we'd lose crap like the Backstreet Boys. It would just come from a different source.
So, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. The current IP system is screwing the consumer over through poor legislation and litigation, along with the content producers who are being held back in much the same way. Get rid of IP altogether and we're just as screwed, if nobody can make a living off their work, a lot of people aren't going to go through the trouble and effort to distribute it. Some will do it for the love of art or science, but they won't be able to popularize it effectively and will have to juggle a lot more issues, all of which will distract them from that creative process.
In the end, we'll have a compromise between the two. Art is always going to be around, but there needs to be a level of support. I think that artists like Chuck D and Steven King have the right idea, get rid of the middle man, go direct and leverage technology. That way you get the best of both worlds, consumers get freedom to choose, and the artist gets support. Of course, all this counts on that support emerging from the consumer. We'll probably see the status quo remain, albeit changed, for quite some time.
In other words, support your artists. If you hear a song you like, buy it. Go to concerts, attend plays, get off your ass and support people who actually care about their art. Nine tenths of the problems with IP could be cured if people just stopped giving into those who are corrupting the system. Support *good* Intellectual Property. IP itself isn't really the problem, it's the way in which it's been mishandled and corrupted. Through these steps, we can preserve both the freedom and choice we want as consumers without losing the ability of the artist to support their work.
Can you name one substantial scientific benefit gained in the last 10 years of manned space flight? The last 20?
In the last 10 years Shuttle flights have been responsible for the Hubble Space Telescope - giving us a much clearer understanding of our universe and how we fit into it. The Hubble needed human servicing to have ever completed its mission.
We've been able to study the effects of spaceflight on the human body, which mimic many of the changes in the aging process. If we're going into space, we need that kind of information.
We've been able to monitor and observe earth-bound phenomena to an extent that has never before been possible, and would not have been possible with robotic craft.
We've given people something to hope for. Sure, robotic missions are great and they bring us loads of scientific data at no human risk, but they lack something that the human imagination needs. No robotic explorer will ever overshadow Neil Armstrong first setting his foot down on a foreign body in space. Who cares about the Russian Luna and American Surveyor probes after that? The world's attention was focused on space because that was a human being out there.
How about taking a close look at Pluto, which we still know almost nothing about? How about a closer look at Europa, an excellent candidate for the presence of life? How about trying to land a probe on Venus capable of surviving more than a few hours?
Isn't the Pluto Express mission set for a launch date in a few years?
There are already plans to revisit Europa, with a craft that can get below the ice and actually settle the life issue.
A probe to Venus would be very difficult to lift out of Earths gravity well. We'd almost have to build something that heavy in space - where could that take place? Why a space station, of course?
Granted, the ISS isn't that big a leap, but it is a leap. The ISS is a worthwhile project, and will continue to advance humanity's progress to the stars.
Well, there's a lot of people saying "so what" to this news. Yes, the ISS is very late, and yes it's not a quantum leap, but it is the first steps towards permanent occupation of space.
It's good for the US, because we now have a permanent base in orbit. That means we can start testing the technologies for longer space flights that the shuttle couldn't. If we're going to go to Mars, we need to know more about reactions to weightlessness, micrometeroid protection, and other issues. The ISS also lets us increase the scientific workload in space - even a small telescope on the ISS would beat the best on Earth because of the freedom from atmospheric disortion and pollution. The ISS is the next logical step if we're to go anywhere in space.
Those who say that Russia is poor and shouldn't be in the space business - how many jobs does this create in the Russian aerospace field? You have engineers and scientists right down to toolmakers and welders who are employed because of this project. One of the few profitable things that the Russians have in their economy is aerospace. Energiya rocket boosters are very reliable and provide a considerable stream of income. The Russians are leading the charge in finding alternate sources of income, their lack of hard currency means that they have to search for outside investment. They're finding that by opening up things like Mir to commercial interests they may be able to keep it in orbit for a few years more. The Russians were the first to sell advertising in space - Pizza Hut had an ad on the booster that lifted Zvezda into orbit.
In the end, there are some very solid practical reasons why the ISS program is beneficial. Unlike most foreign aid we give to Russia, at least the ISS program creates jobs for Russians, as well as Americans. This attitude that anything related to scientific process steals resources away from the poor is completely wrong.
"First of all..."
"First of all..."
OK, so I'm using a redundent numbering scheme. So sue me.
First of all, I'll agree with those who say that this question makes very little sense. From what I can gather, there are two main thrusts to this question. The first involves "intellectual property" and the second involves devaluation. Both questions can be answered simply: the market decides.
/. ...
First of all, you can theoretically charge whatever you want for music/movies/etc. I say theoretically because nobody in their right mind will pay $80 for a Metallica CD. The market has pretty much decided that people will pay around $12-$18 bucks for a CD on the average. Now, with Napster, the market is undergoing a sea change. Digital distribution means that the consumer doesn't have to pay $12-$18 for the same music. Now, there has to be a balance between free (Napster) and ripoff (RIAA). It's all a matter of time. Somehow, people will figure out how to make money of MP3 and Napster. Those that charge too much will get axed out by consumers, those who charge too little will starve to death. In the end, the market will tend towards equilibrium until the next Napster comes along to change the system. So basically, any commerical enterprise in a free market system is driven by the consumer. People will pay what they want, be it a micropayment for a single song, or $80 for one of those Diablo II collector's edition sets. (One wonders if Blizzard knew that everyone in their dog would buy this game, so the jacked up the price $10-$20 above normal knowing that the consumers would still take it.)
Now, the second part of the question. Obviously, you're not going to pay as much for an old Abba CD as you would for Britney Spears or whatever moron is on the top 25 this week. Everything devaluates unless it's wine or Renoirs. Once again, the market is going to decide what price they're willing to pay. That's why they have bargain bins.
Now, in the case of hardware and other equipment, that's also a real no-brainer. If you're buying from Bob's House of Komputers, yeah, you're probably not goning to get any support after the three second lifespan of the business. Once again, caveat emptor. That's why name brands are always arond. Sure, you may pay up the wazoo for a Sony, but you know that they're going to be around for a while.
Finally, here's the gratuitous Open Source plug. Because older hardware has probably already been hacked, you can usually find OSS drivers for it. Yeah, they won't be shiny and new, but they'll work, and they might even have some developers still working on them. In the end, even an old 486 has value. My POS 486 built by companies that no longer exist still serves as my OpenBSD firewall. Once again, the market (me) places value in a commodity (that POS 486) based on what they perceive it to be worth (not much, but I'll still pay a few bucks for it).
So, now I've managed to praise both market-driven laissez-faire capitalism and Open Source in one diatribe. All I need to do is put in a plug for gun rights (NRA4EVER) and mention how in the post-Columbine world geeks are perceived as social outcasts and I'll have managed to impersonate ESR *and* Jon Katz. If I only had a Beowulf cluster of petrified young actresses pouring hot grits down my pants I could be a one-man
First of all, this law is more than likely constitutional. I don't see how its a violation of free speech or free association. If that were unconstitutional, then not allowing minors into porn theaters would be unconstitutional. It's best to actually read the Constitution and have at least a working understanding of it before using it as a blanket defense.
That being out of the way, I belive that this law is probably doomed to a quick death. Simply put, it will kill arcades throughout the city. Games like Mortal Kombat and its ilk are the bread and butter of these places. Denying the vast majority of the customers access to those machines will seriously hurt the bottom line.
Even should that first supposition be wrong, having a roped off section behind a curtain with a big bouncer not allowing kids in is sure going to be a great draw for families, isn't it? Who in their right minds would have their kid's birthday party in a place like that? Even those who don't play those games will be effected by this asinine piece of legislation.
Personally, if I were an Indianapolis arcade owner, I'd tell the city to frag themselves and move to the suburbs out of the way. Consider the lost tax revenue plus the cost of enforcing the law would be rediculous. There's no way that the city can reasonably expect this law to stay on the books without it having a negative and demonstratable effect on the city. This law is doomed to failure, and anyone with half a clue should have been able to figure it out.
If I were an Indianapolis resident, I'd seriously thinking about a recall petition.
Well, I've used Blender, and I find two things about it I dislike.
- The interface
- The rendering engine
Now, that doesn't mean that it's not worth getting - you can't really beat it for the price. But those who say it can compete with the likes of LightWave and 3D Studio are decieving themselves. Blender needs a lot of work, and going the open source route is probably a good decision for getting that done. Here's a few of the features that Blender would need to be competitive:
- Volumetrics (Something akin to LightWave's Hyper Voxels or Afterburn would be good to see.)
- Better shader support, and better shaders (Once again, there are some very good OSS shaders available, all someone would need to do port them over. This could be a good project for someone looking for one.)
- Better interface. (Personally, I like the LightWave/Softimage style of dialogs rather than the cluttered look of other programs. In the end, the ability to customize the interface would probably be the best course of action.)
- Better render engine (Things like better lighting and antialiasing need to be implemented before Blender can hit the big times. Even better would be support for things like radiosity.)
Blender represents a good first step towards 3D on Linux. With some of the things I mentioned above, and other enhancements, it could very well come to challenge other 3D packages. If I had the time and the ability I'd love to work on some of these things myself. Still, there are a lot of OSS programmers who will invariably see the opportunities here and jump on them. That should show people why open development is a superior method of software engineering!