I want to point out that I was trying to speak for RMS' view above. I myself do not nor cannot, at this point, use only free software to support myself
I do feel that large GPL'd projects like Linux should stay true to a philosophy that made them possible. I was saying that to adopt the GPL only for pragmatic reasons is no different than adopting any other non-free software for pragmatic reasons.
Good. I like a role model who has the sense to use the best tool for the job, and who doesn't waste his time with inferior tools.
Best has a context associated with it. RMS believes that best is always free as in GPL'd. Anything else, to him, is inferior.
Linus himself was quoted as saying "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did. "
I'm concerned about what I see as extreme pragmatism on Linus' part. Surely, better software, in terms of features and useability, isn't the only criteria for determining it's selection. Price is obviously a major criterion with such internet-developed projects as the Linux Kernel.
As far as I can tell, the BitKeeper license doesn't insure that future versions, perhaps even versions necessary to run on future OS releases, will still be free of charge and without source, we can't be sure that we could make it work on those releases.
Maybe this is just paranoia and there's really nothing to worry about, or maybe not.
RMS is insistent and consistent. Somebody has to be.
I like Barry Goldwater's statement "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." To RMS this is about liberty and he doesn't compromise.
It seems to me that there are two choices: The GPL is adopted for purely pragmatic reasons because we can outcompete closed source development. The other is that the GPL is adopted as a principled position.
If we take the first position, then will we stop using Linux the moment something better comes along in terms of features, useability and stability? After all, the existence of BitKeeper proves that, at least in some contexts, that closed source development is superior to Open Source Development models. Doesn't it?
Let me ask you. Should we adopt MicroSoft software if it offers better features and useability? Or... are there other concerns than the narrow "best tool for the job" consideration?
Will the NASA heavies come around and break his kneecaps if he doesn't get permission?
NASA? Doesn't he need permission from the FAA to do this? Manned flight, makes him a pilot, right? He'll need to be licensed and his vehicle will need to be approved or he'll need certification as an experimental aircraft, right?
I couldn't find any mention of his getting this cleared with the FAA on the cached website page.
Is there some exception that this guy is using, or do I not understand the FAA regulations? Admittedly, I've not studied them at all...
By using the corner, you can rest both your elbos on the desk.
I'm not Mr. OSHA or anything, I do a lot of things wrong with my workstation and posture habits, but... Read this page , for example, where it says:
Avoid resting any part of your arms on a surface for an extended period of time. Constant pressure on an area such as your elbow can lead to nerve damage. Your elbows should be at your sides, free to move, if needed.
You should never rest your elbows for any extended length of time on a surface. It can result in irreversable nerve damage. These ergnomic arm rests avoid putting any pressure on your elbow.
I used to always rest my elbows, particularly my right elbow, on the chair arms and I think I caused a bit of a problem. I have some numbness and tingling of my pinky finger on my right hand, running down the outside of my right hand. I've stopped resting my elbows, but I still have a bit of numbness.
These claims are all interesting, but as a technology, CDs, which never (*) degrade into pops, skips and crackles is superior, IMHO.
(*) You do get the occasional scratch on a CD that can induce problems, but it's many many orders of magnitude less of a problem as when compared to vinyl.
Nuclear power is an environmentalist's dream. they're just too busy protesting about the word nuclear they don't see it.
People are funny about the term nuclear. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) was first called NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), but the name was changed because they were afraid that people would think they would get hard radiation from it. They didn't want to give that misimpression. X-Rays are pretty hard radiation, but MRIs are pretty innocuous, by comparison.
The pain in my rectum after dealing with Qwest's idea of 'customer service' is disconcerting, at best.
Yeah, I agree. And, maybe they wouldn't be in such bad shape if they didn't try to grub every penny and give good customer service.
My Baby Bell pays big fines every year to the state public service commision for their terrible 'customer service'. I wonder if the fines are actually more costly than it would be to beef up the service, though.
My #1 reason for going with Cable Modem vs. DSL was the poor customer service that my local Baby Bell is so well known for, especially with DSL connections. I have to say that I was quite pleased with the Cable Cos. customer service, so far. So, poor customer service loses another customer.
Agreed. This is not a bad thing as long as RedHat only uses their patents defensively.
Surely, RedHat and others must be concerned about patent suits creating huge clouds of FUD surrounding OSS. Without some patents of their own to attack with, it could be something that could trip them up seriously at some point.
I just had an unecessarily alarmist thought. Could this be used to defeat the GNU license? Sure, you still release your source code under the GNU license, but also charge everyone for using 'your' patents.
I don't think so, but maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I think these clauses from the GPL pretty much cover this potential problem (along with the GPL as a whole and the associated rights that everyone are granted who receives GPLd code):
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
ooohhhh... quoting the GPL on Slashdot... (-1:Karmawhore)
We use space-age technology to accomplish cave-man goals. We don't need better weapons, we somehow need better people.
Your suggestions on how we get these "better people" are welcome.
In the meantime, we have to have the better weapons in order to survive. If we don't survive, then all of our other sentiments, no matter how lofty, are useless.
You had better believe that those who currently enslave their own populations, those who do not share our values of freedom of thought and association are working toward having the best weapons possible. We need to get there first.
Admittedly, we have to also make sure not to lose sight of the fact that our goal is to protect freedoms, not just defeat enemies.
Probably considerably longer. Remember that the USAF recently dropped huge quantities of high explosive on Afganistan using a bomber designed in the 1940's. As well as the B52 there is also the KC135, airlines stopped flying 707s years ago.
The control systems I was involved with were for Electrical and Water Utilities. I don't know about military systems.
However, although some airframes have been pressed into service for 40+ years, I'm fairly certain that no Control Systems for those platforms are anywhere near that old.
The oldest similar control systems would probably be for the Space Shuttle. These are around 20 years old and they are thinking hard about replacing them.
There may be some very old control systems in service out there, but none of them were intended or designed to be in service so long. It's just turned out that way. At some point, the maintenance on the old hardware is way more expensive than the replacement system.
I have to admit that it's nice to watch all the panic.
They do seem to overreact to every threat. Like Netscape, for example. They spent more developing IE 4, IIRC, than they did on Windows 95. And, Windows 95 was their biggest development project up to that point.
And it was way overkill. IE didn't have to be way better to Navigator, which it was, it just had to be good enough and free, which is what really killed Netscape. Netscape couldn't compete with free.
I don't happen to believe that the proprietary business model will disappear or that Microsoft will be bankrupt in the foreseeable future. There is still a lot of resistance to OSS solutions among those who would rather buy their software from a single identifiable entity that builds it and stands behind it. Well, at least they say they stand behind it.
I think the competition from Linux and BSD has sharpened their focus on stability. W2K and XP are huge improvements in stability over earlier offerings.
It could certainly impact their growth and the future is uncertain.
Unfortunately, I don't think OSS advocates can afford to get complacent about the inevitability of it all. If MS survives their anti-trust problems, they will be able to focus their huge war chest ($40Billion) on outcompeting OSS.
It will be interesting, and the consumer will win. Linux will continue to improve and MS might field some startling good things in response.
I'm with the people who say that the OSS community should stop defining itself in terms of competition to MS. Stop trying to react and just keep on making software that fits their own needs. If it wins against MS, great, but the real goal is making software that works.
By defining Linux as a competitor, targets are setup for MS Marketing to try and shoot at. By being a large and amorphous community that makes good software, well, they have a harder time of marketing against "freedom".
It's kind of Taoist. You can't fight against someone who refuses to join the fight.
In the section where I work, it's become common practice not to buy any software that does come with source. That includes database apps written specifically for what we do and marketted to a small niche, utility programs and development tools. The software doesn't have to be "Free" or Open Source - it can come with an NDA, but it must come with source code. Why, you ask? My management now understands the power of having source code. If there's a bug, we fix it. If we need a feature, we add it. We're less dependent on third parties to complete our jobs.
When I worked in SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) a few years back, it was more typical than not to get source to the system. Many contracts required it.
Why? Because these systems were specified and expected to serve for 20 or more years. Without source, you can't expect it to be supported that long.
Also, the customers really liked the flexibility to hire just anybody to fix problems.
SAP provides source (is it just ABAP code or do customers typically get all the source to SAP when they buy it?) for the same kinds of reasons, I believe.
I have no experience in this area, but Mainframe customers often get complete OS source too, I believe. I've known several OpenVMS customers who had source licenses, also.
Not many Windows customers get source, from what I've heard. I think that source distribution was far more common 20 years ago and it's only been in the era of shrinkwrap software that it's diminished. Maybe it's a good idea whose time has returned!
Password enforcement. Our enforcement of the "Strong passwords only" policy has helped us be secure, but it's also eating into our employee bonuses because the users mark us off for it.
Is your firm being paid any less due to customer dissatisfaction?
If the answer is no, then you are being abused by your management. They should throw out strong password complaints when evaluating customer satisfaction.
Surely the civil service organization has a policy about the use of strong passwords. I believe all Federal organizations have such a policy, if this is state or local, maybe not, I guess. Not insisting on implementation of policy would possibly be a cause of legal action against your company should there be problems.
I suspect this is a convenient way for your company to hold on to your bonuses.
Re:adding "expiration" field to a copyright form..
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You don't need a change in any law to implement this. The vendor could just include this as part of the license under which the software is originally purchased.
Try and sell this idea to the software vendors if it's so great. I think you'll see few takers.
Remember if even one patch, security enhancement or minor improvement is made after initial purchase, the vendors will probably try to extend the Copyright by the date of the change. That would certainly be the what would happen if it were part of the Copyright law. Sure, the initial package's Copyright expired in 5 years, but the enhancements you wanted, those expire in 20 years.
This seems overly complicated and fraught with loopholes. Just make the Copyrights expire in a fixed amount of time and be done with it.
Remember, that IP law isn't about letting the Markets decide, or making inventors/authors rich, it's about promoting progress. A simple system, applied consistently is the best way to do this, I think.
Re:How do you define what software is and isn't?
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
What happens if the software you wrote has a limited customer base, and you figure it will take 20 years to get a return on your investment?
10 years gives you a significant headstart on competition. I would expect that you wouldn't just write a piece of software and field it without making significant improvements and upgrades in that 10 years.
Any improvements would be copyrighted for 10 years, or whatever the number is decided upon, remember that I said that 10 years is notional.
Letting the market decide is not a good choice here. Granting IP is supposed to be a monopoly for a limited time. No vendor would set a copyright at anything reasonable if it were for competitive advantage. Not many customers would take into account the expiration of the copyright in their purchasing decisions. I know the customers I work with wouldn't. The vendors would just go back to competing on price and features and all set their expirations at something unreasonably long in the future.
IP is supposed to promote progress, not line pockets. Lining pockets may be a way of promoting progress in the short term, but eventually progress is better served by getting the IP out there where others can build on it.
Copyrights on software should be shortened
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Seeing as the whole purpose of IP is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;", it's absurd to hold a copyright on software for 70 or 90 years or whatever the current law holds.
It's just way way overkill. Rather than promoting progress and the "useful Arts", the current system just extends a monopoly into the indefinite future and discourages anyone from building on your work constructively.
Really, if you can't get enough benefit out of writing a piece of software in 10 years, then it's someone else's turn. Note that you could make modifications in those 10 years and those could be copyrighted, but let the original software go back to the public domain in a reasonable time.
Ten years is just notional. I'm not sure where I'd set it, but I know 70 years is ridiculous and the 90 years granted to corporations (most Software copyrights on proprietary software is probably held by corporations) is even more out there.
Software is different than other IP. It's greatest benefit to society is in it's use and in it's flexibility. A sensible policy wrt to software copyrights would encourage more flexibility and more use.
No. Perhaps he's happy the way he is. Perhaps ALS is what has defined him as he is today... would you risk losing him? Perhaps, without ALS, he'd be flipping burgers.
Now you're just being silly. First of all, Hawkings was already a famous scientist long before the symptoms of ALS began to appear, Second, he isn't "happy the way he is" -- if you read about him, you'll find that he considered suicide when he first realized he had ALS, and in fact many people with ALS do kill themselves. Thirdly, there is no evidence that people with ALS are more intelligent than normal in general.
While I agree that he's being silly, perhaps flippant:-), with his remark about Hawking and burgers, there is this article to consider.
Hawking was not really a "famous scientist" when his ALS was discovered at 21. He had just started down the path and here he clearly states that his disease gave him the perspective to focus his life to the cause of Science. Curious that in this account he doesn't mention the suicide that you say he contemplated.
Also, you'll find from his own quotes that he tries to live without regrets.
I'm concerned that Science will one day cure all of our challenges. Eliminating the schizophrenia of Michaelangelo, the autism (?) of Einstein and the deafness of Beethoven.
Apparently, from your disparagement of bioethicism, you aren't concerned with this or any consequence of technological advance.
I've never understood why these sorts of publications should not care about anti-Linux issues. Any *good* business publication will realise that their readers *do* want to know about things that save them money. If you had to pay for air, do you really imagine a savvy business paper wouldn't discuss a new possibility of getting air for free....
Because those who would be providing the air for free wouldn't advertise in business magazines as much as those those who distribute air for cash.
You know, if you're not careful you're going to end up dead from a distinct lack of having a life.
I was thinking the exact same thing myself.
Really, this guy should memorize StarWars trivia, go to SCA Festivals and various Cons, commit to marathon sessions of playing Video and fantasy role playing games, you know all the stuff we geeks do to get a life.
Slashdot Mirror
I do feel that large GPL'd projects like Linux should stay true to a philosophy that made them possible. I was saying that to adopt the GPL only for pragmatic reasons is no different than adopting any other non-free software for pragmatic reasons.
Best has a context associated with it. RMS believes that best is always free as in GPL'd. Anything else, to him, is inferior.
Linus himself was quoted as saying "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did. "
I'm concerned about what I see as extreme pragmatism on Linus' part. Surely, better software, in terms of features and useability, isn't the only criteria for determining it's selection. Price is obviously a major criterion with such internet-developed projects as the Linux Kernel.
As far as I can tell, the BitKeeper license doesn't insure that future versions, perhaps even versions necessary to run on future OS releases, will still be free of charge and without source, we can't be sure that we could make it work on those releases.
Maybe this is just paranoia and there's really nothing to worry about, or maybe not.
RMS is insistent and consistent. Somebody has to be.
I like Barry Goldwater's statement "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." To RMS this is about liberty and he doesn't compromise.
It seems to me that there are two choices: The GPL is adopted for purely pragmatic reasons because we can outcompete closed source development. The other is that the GPL is adopted as a principled position.
If we take the first position, then will we stop using Linux the moment something better comes along in terms of features, useability and stability? After all, the existence of BitKeeper proves that, at least in some contexts, that closed source development is superior to Open Source Development models. Doesn't it?
Let me ask you. Should we adopt MicroSoft software if it offers better features and useability? Or... are there other concerns than the narrow "best tool for the job" consideration?
NASA? Doesn't he need permission from the FAA to do this? Manned flight, makes him a pilot, right? He'll need to be licensed and his vehicle will need to be approved or he'll need certification as an experimental aircraft, right?
I couldn't find any mention of his getting this cleared with the FAA on the cached website page.
Is there some exception that this guy is using, or do I not understand the FAA regulations? Admittedly, I've not studied them at all...
I'm not Mr. OSHA or anything, I do a lot of things wrong with my workstation and posture habits, but... Read this page , for example, where it says:
You should never rest your elbows for any extended length of time on a surface. It can result in irreversable nerve damage. These ergnomic arm rests avoid putting any pressure on your elbow.
I used to always rest my elbows, particularly my right elbow, on the chair arms and I think I caused a bit of a problem. I have some numbness and tingling of my pinky finger on my right hand, running down the outside of my right hand. I've stopped resting my elbows, but I still have a bit of numbness.
(*) You do get the occasional scratch on a CD that can induce problems, but it's many many orders of magnitude less of a problem as when compared to vinyl.
People are funny about the term nuclear. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) was first called NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), but the name was changed because they were afraid that people would think they would get hard radiation from it. They didn't want to give that misimpression. X-Rays are pretty hard radiation, but MRIs are pretty innocuous, by comparison.
Yeah, I agree. And, maybe they wouldn't be in such bad shape if they didn't try to grub every penny and give good customer service.
My Baby Bell pays big fines every year to the state public service commision for their terrible 'customer service'. I wonder if the fines are actually more costly than it would be to beef up the service, though.
My #1 reason for going with Cable Modem vs. DSL was the poor customer service that my local Baby Bell is so well known for, especially with DSL connections. I have to say that I was quite pleased with the Cable Cos. customer service, so far. So, poor customer service loses another customer.
Surely, RedHat and others must be concerned about patent suits creating huge clouds of FUD surrounding OSS. Without some patents of their own to attack with, it could be something that could trip them up seriously at some point.
I don't think so, but maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I think these clauses from the GPL pretty much cover this potential problem (along with the GPL as a whole and the associated rights that everyone are granted who receives GPLd code):
ooohhhh... quoting the GPL on Slashdot... (-1:Karmawhore)
Where should we put that hole in your head?
In case you haven't noticed, the Baby Bells are hurting right now. Remember the telecom meltdown?
US West (aka Qwest) just had their bond status downgraded to junk. This is the worst example, but the others aren't doing so hot these days, either.
Your suggestions on how we get these "better people" are welcome.
In the meantime, we have to have the better weapons in order to survive. If we don't survive, then all of our other sentiments, no matter how lofty, are useless.
You had better believe that those who currently enslave their own populations, those who do not share our values of freedom of thought and association are working toward having the best weapons possible. We need to get there first.
Admittedly, we have to also make sure not to lose sight of the fact that our goal is to protect freedoms, not just defeat enemies.
The control systems I was involved with were for Electrical and Water Utilities. I don't know about military systems.
However, although some airframes have been pressed into service for 40+ years, I'm fairly certain that no Control Systems for those platforms are anywhere near that old.
The oldest similar control systems would probably be for the Space Shuttle. These are around 20 years old and they are thinking hard about replacing them.
There may be some very old control systems in service out there, but none of them were intended or designed to be in service so long. It's just turned out that way. At some point, the maintenance on the old hardware is way more expensive than the replacement system.
Let's hope that the lower court's decision is quashed.
Quick! Get an affadavit certifying that this shirt exists on today's date. Then, you'll have a quaint collector's item! A once illegal T-Shirt.
They do seem to overreact to every threat. Like Netscape, for example. They spent more developing IE 4, IIRC, than they did on Windows 95. And, Windows 95 was their biggest development project up to that point.
And it was way overkill. IE didn't have to be way better to Navigator, which it was, it just had to be good enough and free, which is what really killed Netscape. Netscape couldn't compete with free.
I don't happen to believe that the proprietary business model will disappear or that Microsoft will be bankrupt in the foreseeable future. There is still a lot of resistance to OSS solutions among those who would rather buy their software from a single identifiable entity that builds it and stands behind it. Well, at least they say they stand behind it.
I think the competition from Linux and BSD has sharpened their focus on stability. W2K and XP are huge improvements in stability over earlier offerings.
It could certainly impact their growth and the future is uncertain.
Unfortunately, I don't think OSS advocates can afford to get complacent about the inevitability of it all. If MS survives their anti-trust problems, they will be able to focus their huge war chest ($40Billion) on outcompeting OSS.
It will be interesting, and the consumer will win. Linux will continue to improve and MS might field some startling good things in response.
I'm with the people who say that the OSS community should stop defining itself in terms of competition to MS. Stop trying to react and just keep on making software that fits their own needs. If it wins against MS, great, but the real goal is making software that works.
By defining Linux as a competitor, targets are setup for MS Marketing to try and shoot at. By being a large and amorphous community that makes good software, well, they have a harder time of marketing against "freedom".
It's kind of Taoist. You can't fight against someone who refuses to join the fight.
When I worked in SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) a few years back, it was more typical than not to get source to the system. Many contracts required it.
Why? Because these systems were specified and expected to serve for 20 or more years. Without source, you can't expect it to be supported that long.
Also, the customers really liked the flexibility to hire just anybody to fix problems.
SAP provides source (is it just ABAP code or do customers typically get all the source to SAP when they buy it?) for the same kinds of reasons, I believe.
I have no experience in this area, but Mainframe customers often get complete OS source too, I believe. I've known several OpenVMS customers who had source licenses, also.
Not many Windows customers get source, from what I've heard. I think that source distribution was far more common 20 years ago and it's only been in the era of shrinkwrap software that it's diminished. Maybe it's a good idea whose time has returned!
Is your firm being paid any less due to customer dissatisfaction?
If the answer is no, then you are being abused by your management. They should throw out strong password complaints when evaluating customer satisfaction.
Surely the civil service organization has a policy about the use of strong passwords. I believe all Federal organizations have such a policy, if this is state or local, maybe not, I guess. Not insisting on implementation of policy would possibly be a cause of legal action against your company should there be problems.
I suspect this is a convenient way for your company to hold on to your bonuses.
Try and sell this idea to the software vendors if it's so great. I think you'll see few takers.
Remember if even one patch, security enhancement or minor improvement is made after initial purchase, the vendors will probably try to extend the Copyright by the date of the change. That would certainly be the what would happen if it were part of the Copyright law. Sure, the initial package's Copyright expired in 5 years, but the enhancements you wanted, those expire in 20 years.
This seems overly complicated and fraught with loopholes. Just make the Copyrights expire in a fixed amount of time and be done with it.
Remember, that IP law isn't about letting the Markets decide, or making inventors/authors rich, it's about promoting progress. A simple system, applied consistently is the best way to do this, I think.
10 years gives you a significant headstart on competition. I would expect that you wouldn't just write a piece of software and field it without making significant improvements and upgrades in that 10 years.
Any improvements would be copyrighted for 10 years, or whatever the number is decided upon, remember that I said that 10 years is notional.
Letting the market decide is not a good choice here. Granting IP is supposed to be a monopoly for a limited time. No vendor would set a copyright at anything reasonable if it were for competitive advantage. Not many customers would take into account the expiration of the copyright in their purchasing decisions. I know the customers I work with wouldn't. The vendors would just go back to competing on price and features and all set their expirations at something unreasonably long in the future.
IP is supposed to promote progress, not line pockets. Lining pockets may be a way of promoting progress in the short term, but eventually progress is better served by getting the IP out there where others can build on it.
It's just way way overkill. Rather than promoting progress and the "useful Arts", the current system just extends a monopoly into the indefinite future and discourages anyone from building on your work constructively.
Really, if you can't get enough benefit out of writing a piece of software in 10 years, then it's someone else's turn. Note that you could make modifications in those 10 years and those could be copyrighted, but let the original software go back to the public domain in a reasonable time.
Ten years is just notional. I'm not sure where I'd set it, but I know 70 years is ridiculous and the 90 years granted to corporations (most Software copyrights on proprietary software is probably held by corporations) is even more out there.
Software is different than other IP. It's greatest benefit to society is in it's use and in it's flexibility. A sensible policy wrt to software copyrights would encourage more flexibility and more use.
Now you're just being silly. First of all, Hawkings was already a famous scientist long before the symptoms of ALS began to appear, Second, he isn't "happy the way he is" -- if you read about him, you'll find that he considered suicide when he first realized he had ALS, and in fact many people with ALS do kill themselves. Thirdly, there is no evidence that people with ALS are more intelligent than normal in general.
While I agree that he's being silly, perhaps flippant :-), with his remark about Hawking and burgers, there is this article to consider.
Hawking was not really a "famous scientist" when his ALS was discovered at 21. He had just started down the path and here he clearly states that his disease gave him the perspective to focus his life to the cause of Science. Curious that in this account he doesn't mention the suicide that you say he contemplated.
Also, you'll find from his own quotes that he tries to live without regrets.
I'm concerned that Science will one day cure all of our challenges. Eliminating the schizophrenia of Michaelangelo, the autism (?) of Einstein and the deafness of Beethoven. Apparently, from your disparagement of bioethicism, you aren't concerned with this or any consequence of technological advance.
That being said, 2012 is a long ways off in terms of what Moore's law will provide. By 2012 we should have ~200 Ghz processors.
Obligatory joke: Think about a Beowolf cluster of those babies!
Because those who would be providing the air for free wouldn't advertise in business magazines as much as those those who distribute air for cash.
I was thinking the exact same thing myself.
Really, this guy should memorize StarWars trivia, go to SCA Festivals and various Cons, commit to marathon sessions of playing Video and fantasy role playing games, you know all the stuff we geeks do to get a life.
Uhhm... Wait a minute.
Well, that is, until now.
Expect to be called in first thing next week to explain.
You know, the ol' crack thing. Give the first one away for free...