While it's ajoke on slashdot to say "Imagine a beowulfcluster of those", in this case, it could actually make sense.
Since those tags are produced en masse and you will get them whenever you buy (in the future), it will become trivial to get a huge bunch of them in a short time. Find a way to link them, and you could use them for building your own supercomputer.
Well, ok, you'll need all your walls covered by them, probably...though I once read they envisaged 16kb per tag, which would make it not all that farfetched.
Regardless, sooner or later some nerd will use it for creating his home-made weirdobox.
"Can use it for a Free Software piece of software? Nope."
Yes they CAN, provided they don't *sell* it. How comes I don't seem to get this point across?
Say, you have free/open software, and they GIVE it away (like sometimes can happen, like with knoppix-CD's), then they can use all the non-commercial stuff in there.
I agree that, in most commercial distro's, this won't help much because they do sell their products (exept for the free d/l many of them offer), but that's their choice. If they wan't to use it, they can, provided they don't sell the products - much like you can use GPL stuff, provided you abide to the rules of the licence.
Every licence knows its restrictions (apart from possibly BSD and public domain), but it doesn't mean one can not make use of them, it only means you can make use of them as long as you agree to the rules of the licences. In the case of (some) CC licences, this involves the condition that, if you want to use them, you may not sell it (or make a profit from; I'm not sure, and there is a distinction, ofcourse).
Since FLOSS products do have the posibility of being distributed without being sold - even in practise - they could certainly make use of non-commercial CC works in some cases.
It's not being Brit/european or not that makes the most difference, but rather the anglo-saxon thingy. Look at all the native-english speaking countries: USA, UK, Australia...they all have the most stupid laws (especially concerning IP-rights and the trampling of civil rights) of any of the industrialised countries in the world.
A notable exeption is Canada, but then again, those are partially french.;-)
I'm sorry, but you are wrong and the parent poster is right. Every author can choose what to do with his own code what he wants. This includes dual licencing: one can licence your own code under the gpl, but also under another licence (at the same time).
The "derived from" does not come into play, when he *only* takes *his* changes, and nothing else. Probably he wouldn't have anything working anymore, but in theory it's possible he rewrites from scratch all the other stuff, which would make the total of the prog not GPL'ed. (even though, at the same time, he could not retract those parts/changes he already released under the GPL as (also) falling under the GPL).
This too, is a half truth. *software*patents are not perfectly valid, infact, they are illegal according to an EU directive of '73. Alas, due to 'creative' interpretation of the law and rules, the EPO (and in their following some - but not all - national patentoffices) have granted swp nevertheless.
Which leads to the current situation, where there are swp, though they are not really allowed, and that they could be used in court, but almost never are because any company trying it, has a good chance their swp will be deemed unvalid by the courts.
A clear and non-ambigious directive that makes it explicitkly unlawful to have swp in ALL EU countires wopuld solve all the current chaos.
"He went to Windows XP because he is completely addicted to Delta Force: Land Warrior and wanted to be able to play it again. And THAT is the hurdle for Linux on the desktop - not usability."
Yes, games is another matter. And I know it could be claimed that it's not the fault of Linux. And, while I agree for the large part, for joe doe that doesn't change all that much.
Yes, linux could be good enough for 'my granny'; if my granny only wants to browse and email, and not try out some new progs found on the Net. But, in all honesty: can one truelly say that any prog one can find for windows, is as easily installable (if you can find the same for linux in the first place) on Linux?
The moment you diverge from the truelly mainstream and well-known progs, you soon run into missing libs, tars and what not that just happen to fail on your particular distro, and god forbid, involves compiling. One can not expect a normal user to give up windows for an OS that (as he sees it) has all those problems. While oçne can rightfully say it's not all the fault of Linux istelf, it still remains a drawback.
I'm not saying this because I'm against linux, in fact, while I have hardly used the OS, I have frequently bought some distro's (mainly mandrake) just to support the development. But, if I have to give an honest impression as how user-friendly it is, it still falls short.
For ionstance, when my OS was installed (which I must( say went very well, even better then with win, in some instances), the desktop and browser was set in miniscule letters: I could hardly read anything. Now, ofcourse there were setting to change that, but try that with menus you can barely read on a strange OS. This was the case with my 8.2 as well as with the 9.2 version. It's not a huge problem, but it still is very annoying and frustrating spending hours just to be able to READ the letters on the desktop in the letters. And it's just those little things that do it, you know.
I have tried a lot of win OSses in my life, and for sure they weren't perfect, but I never had it start-up with letters almost too small to read. I do not doubt that Linux is technical superior, and a lot of the fault lies with the applications, and the installment went really well... but it should be possible to say what's still wrong with it, without being called names, me thinks.
"'World Stage' is a term used by European actors (particularly the French) who see international relations as some kind of parlor game."
This would denote the statement that most americans are clueless (etc), how, exactly? Whether "world stage" is a french term or not, what has that to do with it?
"In the US we are quite mindful of how we are percieved."
Actually, most don't bother, because, after all, the usa is "the greatest country in the world" and when push comes to shove, no other country (nor the perception of their foreign populace) really matters, right? Those that are more mindful and care about the views abroad, are by defintion going to be the more cosmopolitan in nature. I doubt many rednecks lay awake at night contemplating the negative view those pesky French and German people have of them.
"We just don't feel that negative perception is justified or that it is worth trading security for."
No doubt you feel it's not justified. That's why I respect the USA-individuals I spoke of earlier, because, against all odds (national-zealot reflex and all that), they DO realise that the negative perception is largely justified.
And you make a false argument by making it a diametrically oposed position; it's not OR having a positive perception and being unsafe OR having a negative perception and gaining security. That thought is absurd, and exactly shows the mentality that is resented in much of the rest of the world. Do you *actually* believe that you have to trade the one for the other, or are you only pretending to be as daft because you feel the 'euro-dudes are attacking my country again'?
There is no connection, let alone a causality between improving the perception abroad and security, and if there is one, it would be that security gets better if your relations abroad get better too, won't you think?
But, no, according to you it's not worth 'trading' security for. Only civil liberties are worth trading for it, it seems.
"No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest."
Well, make it yourself easy then, and say I'm dishonest about all the rest I said. I do not know what you read into it (I didn't say people had to compile anything to install Firefox, for instance), but my statement as such remains valid, whether you 'require' compiling or not, let alone installing libs. That would depend entirely on what you try to do on your box, or what you are trying to run.
"Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded."
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be the typical smug and arrogant bastard who thinks he has to insult people - while at the same time acting as if he doesn't - to try to make some point.
"Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website. I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help. "
Indeed, one would think so. Alas, the instructions did not work. As for that matter, in theory, it would have been even more simple to get it with urpmi and apt-get, but those failed too.
"Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry."
Dude, there wasn't much of a choice back then. Do you actually think people would want to go back to DOS-commands, now that they are used to GUI? I don't understand your argument: what was enough to create a monopoly 20 years ago, isn't enough anymore today. That's why all major linux-distro's bring out GUIs too, you know.
"My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most."
Ofcourse cost is an important factor too; did I claim the contrary? But, in reality, many people make use of an illegal copy, or have win pre-installed, so they don't have or perceive the cost of it. Thus, while it's an advantage that Linux can be free (beer), it's not ALL that great an advantage compared to windows, in reality.
"If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows."
Macs cost too much for the ordinary users. And even if it were at exactly the same price today, the ease of use in win is good enough for most ppl, so they wouldn't change anyway, unless some other reasons prevail (such as looks/design). If the Macs had been allowed to be cloned in mass, and become as cheap as the other PC at the time that it first had a GUI, there is little doubt THEY would dominate the market today. But they missed that chance.
Now, it's all too easy to claim a person is dishonest and retarded, but rest assured it doesn't change the fact that Linux is not ready for prime time. It's the easy way out, isn't it? Don't acknowledge Linux is not as user-friendly as yet, just say the users giving critique are retarded.
No doubt that will bring Linux to the desktop much sooner.
"Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I understand you can see things both ways, but if you are speaking of 'Linux on the desktop' then the above poster is right. Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.
They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running. They need something simple and easy to use to get what they want, and political, ideological and tech-savvy issues are not a prime concern for them. I think the Linux crowd, being tech-savvy themselves, all too often fail to realise this truth.
And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.
Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.
THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.
make exlusions for some countries. Take Iceland, for instance; even now, it already has an enormous amount of alternative energy, and it plans on completely replacing oil/gas products by 'green' energy within 10 years, I believe. And I actually think they can do it.
But does that mean any country can do the same?
Ofcourse not. Iceland has huge reservoires of geothermal sources, which can be used quite effectively. Try the same with almost any other country and you will fail.
Thus, it's dangerous to generalise. If every country had geothermal sources, or rivers and space in aboundance to provide for huge dams, or large stretches of land where the wind can blow unobstructed...well, yes, then it might be a solution.
In reality, this isn't true for most countries, and it certainly isn't true for mine (which I was aluding at, btw). I dunno how Denmark does it, but let's say they have placed windmills on their shores, and they covered 10% of their beaches with windmills...denmark having lots of coastal area. For the same effect, countries that have ten times less shore, would effectively place 100% of their beaches full; something that people just won't accept.
This simple example already shows how difficult it is to translate from one country to another. So I don't say it's technical impossible to derive 20% of ones' energy from windmills, even here...but at what cost? In reality, this is pretty doubtfull ever to happen, unless your country is suited to handle these things.
And, lastly, let's not forget those windmills, even in Denmark, are heavily subsidised. If they had to compete in a normal way, they wouldn't stand a chance untill coal and the lot doubled in price.
"We're talking about less than 1/2 of 1% of the total ocean area. Did anybody consider what would happen before we altered 25% or more of the total land area, or before we started harvesting 90% of the population of various ocean species?"
No, but we should have learned something from that, right?
I agree with your assessement that it "probably' will not cause much damage - but that was said about windmills too, untill they discovered it did disturb the breeding of some birds. So, even when unlikely, one still have to research the impact. And sometimes, this is difficult to asses: we've been using sonar for decennia, for instance, but only now science has discovered it may cause severe (and permanent) damage for some species of whales, sometimes leading to death. And there aren't all that much whales to begin with.
So, envirronment is an unknown, really.
"That's why it's good modern technology has brought us GPS, radar and RFID. "
All those things can not exclude accidents even today, however, and it would become worse if giant amounts of floating platforms are put in the oceans.
"There are similar questions about fossil fuels, like would it be economically viable to dig thousands of wells from floating ocean platforms miles into the earth's crust."
Exactly my point. They didn't start right away with building thousands of oilplatforms; they tried it out first. And that was AFTER they made a good economical assessement (environment only came to be important later). And that, in turn, could be based because they already had a pretty good idea of how much those oil-platforms could bring up, and at what price; things we are largely unfamiliar with, with these new forms of alternative powergenerators.
So, first it has to be tried out experimentally, but as yet all those alternative systems have rather known a limited succes. And even then, I think the hybrid forms of wind/wave generators have more potential then solarplatforms, I must say.
But, realistically speaking, I just don't see those forms to ever become the main supplier of energy. And, to me, the most logical approach is continuing with coal and especially nuclear, untill the alternate energysources really have matured, or even better, fusion has been reached in a workable way.
And, while I agree with your assessemnt that CO2 and global warming is a much greater threat to us then the influence solarplatforms on the ocean may have, I find it strange that you don't use the same reasoning with nuclear facilities.
Indeed, there are problems, especially with the radio-active waste, but those porblems pale in comparison with the problem global warming is going to cause. And seen it's the logical choice for the short and mid-term , it's no wonder that former green-icons - but luckily logical scientist, like Lovelock, have turned around and indeed are now supporting this view. Nuclear may not be perfect, but it really IS the best solution for now. And uranium will eventually be depleted, true, as will coal, but it will bide us the time in a realistic way untill we come up with a true and better solution.
I dunno what point you are trying to make, but you sure use few (none) arguments to make it.
Are you claiming your relations with Muslims are all that exellent, especially after 9/11? I think some thousands of Muslims whome were arrested without any charge may disagree. And I guess their are no racist attitudes anymore neither?
Yeah, right.
All people are prejudiced, including 'my' people, and denying that is the first problem. Once you realise that, you can begin adressing it. But ofcourse, there is an inherent difference between basing ones' viepoint on, say, the color of skin, which can not be held, and judging someone based on their actions. I would strongly combat the former, but I reserve the right to judge someone - including a country - according to their actions. I do it with my country, even.
But where do that bring us in regard to the clichés? Exactly on the same spot as what I said earlier: a lot of clichés have a grain of truth in it, yet the danger lies in making it absolute. Someone denying the first is an idiot and denying the latter makes him a dangerous fool. You seem to invoke a racist or religious background for it, where there is none: I wasn't speaking about other 'races' (which is a misnomer to begin with). but there are cultural differences, even among 'whites', and, while clichés don't give a clear picture of any of them, the more general and persistant ones, DO have something of truth in it. (Take the German 'Punktlichkeit'; do you think this is purely imagined or biased? Forget it; it actually describes the mentality in this regard of most germans.)
Anyway, you are happily using terms like 'moronic' and 'bigoted attitude', but your conclusion is false, and I sincerely hope you reject my 'silly notions' out of better grounds then you just posted.
Ah, yes, that's all very nice in theory, but alas not very plausable to work in reality (a bit like communism).
Something the size of alaska? Who would actually build it? Seems a bit overstreched for one country. A group of countries, then? What about the third world? And where exactly would you build it? You say; the ocean, but minimise the possible problems with that concept (much as windmills here in my country). In theory, we could perhaps create 20% of our energy that way, if we put every square meter of our beach full with them. In reality, we all know that isn't going to happen, because no-one wants that, ppl find it disturbing, environmental issues are abound (nesting birds, etc), etc.
The same goes with your proposal. You claim it wouldn't impact the environment; but how do you know? Did you have any studies on it? Isn't it possible that sea-life dependen on the sun, would get affected? Will it not become a burden to the sea-routes and a danger to ships? Who would be legally responsable? What if they are layed in international waters? What is the cost of maintainance? How many will get wrecked by storms? Will it be economical viable?
All these questions need a reasonable answer, before even contemplating it. And I think that, in practise, such a project would not work, certainly not without having considerable drawbacks, and it being not economical viable.
In fact, if you are pondering about sea-floating power-units, there are already hybrid wind/wave generators (or detailed plans thereof) that show a lot more potential then mere solarcells. But even those are not yet build, or at least not in large numbers, because their are also considerable doubts on their viability. And one has to wonder what countries will have to do that don't have large coastal areas or sea-access.
I'm afraid it's not at all that rosy, in regard to alternative energies. It shouldn't stop us researching, ofcourse, but I fear many greenish dudes are simply letting their judgement be clouded with self-delusions. I mean, c'mon: even with giant breakthroughs, mass-production, reduced costs, etc. Their are inherent limits to almost all alternative energies. You can't build windmills on every square meter, you can't continue to build geothermal powerhouses (provided you have that option in the first place), nor classic waterpower by dams. Their are is a rather limited possibility for it, especially in a lot of smaller european countries.
And what if there is no wind for some days, or no sunshine? Sure, you could provide some redundancy, but it still is a fact those energysources are not providing a steady, regular stream or amount of power, which makes it harder to manage. The only possible exeption are probably wave-powergenerators.
No, the real solution will come when we can build (economical) workable fusionreactors. Untill then, coal, oil and nuclear will remain the main energy-provider, some countries (like Iceland) excluded, ofcourse.
On an individual level, I do see a future for solar-energy, ofcourse, but I doubt it will have a huge impact at a household, untill the moment it becomes viable to have enough electricity for everything we do now, derived from an area the size of your roof-top, even when half of the time it doesn't see any sun.
I'm all for alternative energies, but the problem is rather the unrealistic views some (especially the greens) have of it.
It's not as much a question of *IF* it helps when their is alternative energy available, but rather the amount it can replace - at least, when you are diosmantling (as happens in my country) nuclear powerplants that provide about 60% of the total power. This was due thanks to the pressure of the greens. No-one seemed to have wondered at that time, where that energy should come from in the future - apart from some nonsensical crap about windmills and the lot.
Ofcourse, it's plainly obvious that those won't do by a long stretch, so then it DOES become important to know how much it can replace. Solar can't do it, not even a tenth of the required energy. Neither can wind. Or hydro. Or geothermal. Or biofuel. And all taken together, they STILL wouldn't replace more then half of what is needed today, let alone in 5 years, when nuclear powerplants are shut down.
In fact, from your entire list, only two CAN have a reasonable chance of providing enough energy now and in the future; and those are nuclear and/or coal.
I think that's what ppl mean, when they say alternative energies are not real options as yet. Sure, anything that helps is welcome, but in any realistic viepoint, ALL of the above mentionned energysources - apart from nuclear and fossile fuels - even combined together will NOT be make more then a drop in the ever power-hungry ocean, at least in large parts of the western world.
I think the only real solution is fusion. But untill that because viable, the use of coal will rise, alternative energies will remain largely a fringe activity (at least on large scale demand) and closing down nuclear reactions without providing real alternatives remain political idiocies without equal in a socio-economic sense.
"I think Europeans stereotype Americans and their views too narrowly. It makes America easier to understand for them maybe."
Yes, OR maybe that's an easy excuse to downplay any critique on Amerikans and the USA from us europeans.
For sure, there is a danger in using clichés and stereotypes, but it is also true, that those clichés *DO* hold a lot of water. Actually, I can't say I know of any well-established cliché about the nature of a people, that didn't had some truth in it. And that includes those of my own people/country, even though I would be hardpressed to acknowledge them in public. (Something which most USA-citizens seem to have too, only in a bigger national-zealot-reflex manner).
But actually, they ARE true, to a large extend.
The danger comes from turning that cliché into an absolute viewpoint: that ALL europeans or americans are like that. Being rational and honest, no one can actually claim such a thing, of course. So, while I may think that, in general, the USA - and especially it's current government - is arrogant, narrow-minded, uncritical and downright hypocrite idiots, I temper this viewpoint with the knowledge the USA also had and has critical thinkers and rebels that show signs of independend thought, intelligence and a cosmopolitan attitude, like Carl Sagan, M.Moore, R.Stallman and some others I've come to know by their work. Those people certainly deserve respect.
It does not follow the USA as a whole deserves respect. Certainly not like things are going currently. However you want to turn it, you must realise that the USA is behaving like a bully, and is increasingly acting - especially since the end of the cold war - like the world is their backyard where they can do what they want.
This is not surprising, since they ARE currently the only true superpower left, and being the strongest (as bullies usually go), they think everything is permitted. Sooner or later, they will discover their error.
"'Travelling' in general is a right. Travelling by plane (and using this specific airlines) is not a right."
I'm sorry, are you implying there is a law somewhere that says travelling is a right, exept when you want to take an airplane? With that definite exclusion? As a law?
I don't think so.
The poster that replied to you might have been a bit undiplomatic, but he's right in essence.
It is not "exactly the same thing" as a mortgage; you have no law saying you have the inherent right on a morgage. You DO have a law (at least in my country) which say you are free to go as you please. And even if there is such a law, it's completely nuts to say it is secret and can't be viewed by the public. Especially when the citizens are supposed to know the laws of the country.
It is true, one always has a choice (in this case, to go or not to go), but the question rather is, if this choice does not contradict the rights of freedom you DO have, as a citizen. That's what John Gilmore is going to find out, and I'm glad that he has the time and resources to do it. Myself, I must confess, would act like the myriads of other sheep, with the difference I would do it out of blind obiedience, but simply because, in a pragmatic view, I can't spare the energy to fight this, especially when I really *have* to be flown there at a certain time. Not everyone can afford the luxery of (costly legal) fighting for our rights, but I'm sure glad as hell *some* can.
A valid remark, though I prefer to use plain text, and with your suggestions, that won't do (unless you actually want to see the tag;-).
But I'm quite confident a reader who pays attention - even when missing the end " - would notice the change of heart of my comments vs. the body quoted, seen the fact they comment on what was said above in the form of critique.
Ofcourse, I'm also well aware that such readers and slashdotters may not share much common traits, so I'll try to make it a bit more obvious in the future.
So, basically, you agree, then. Because, ofcourse, you saw that I was quoting from an url-source (from an IPlawyer) and you read the comments I wrote at the bottom, no doubt.
So the "you" you are refering to, is the IPlawyer, right?:-)
So, basically, you agree, then. Because, ofcourse, you saw that I was quoting from an url-source (from an IPlawyer) and you read the comments I wrote at the bottom, no doubt.
So the "you" you are refering to, is the IPlawyer, right?:-)
"Value of a car whan anyone can take it, value of land in Darfur, Sudan?"
Let's take your examples as a hypothetical situation. You seem to imply, that no value exists, outside the legal scope, but actually, the value lies simply in what people find valuable.
The error you make in your example, is that you confront two diametrically oposed forces: when you say "when anyone can take it', you mean: take it away. Therefor, you let a group deprive another group, just like one does with legal means. Now, you said outside a legal structure, but in effect, you replace it by military might or simple 'rule of the strong'. This replaces the normal legal structure, but does it diminish the value of the car? Aparently not, certainly not to those grabbing it - otherwise, they wouldn't bother to steal it in the first place. It's for the people that DON'T have the force to defend themselves that the value of having a car diminuishes.
But, let's imagine that cars or land truelly can be taken by anyone. so: you take it from me, but I can take it back, or from someone else, without any hassle. Then what: would cars lose their value? As a token of private ownership (or just as a manner to show off), yes. But cars would still be valued because it is easy for transportation, etc.
Ofcourse, this would never work in reality, as communism has shown, but the point is, even when following your hypothetical example, things do not lose their worth per sé, if/when others can take it, provided you can take the same back - and if the device in question is useful, ofcourse.
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the 314th trol comming along with the "if I have worked hard and long, and put a lot of work and energy into it, why shouldn't I be able to patent my idea/software/method?"
First of all, as others (such as Halo1) and myself have already pointed out, there is no inherent right for a 'fair compensation' by a patent. A patent is a monopoly, given by the state, because it (is supposed to) promote innovation. For all those claiming to be capitalists: a monopoly given by the state does not sound all that capitalistic, does it?
But regardless: if it doesn't achieve it's goal of promoting innovation, it should not be granted, period.
But secondly, let's assume to agree with the 'I've earned it'-concept. Would that, in effect, be fair? Patents, these days, are more about ideas then anything else: even the original needed working model isn't any longer necessary... so, is it 'fair' to be compensated for an idea?
Well, imagine some other dude thought of the same idea a little bit later then you, but he gets to the patent-office first, and he gets the patent...where does that leave you? Shouldn't you be compensated for 'all the hard work and energy' you put in the idea? And imagine you were first to apply for it, but he had the actual idea first, independently from you...shouldn't it be 'fair' that he get compensated for his energy and work? Would it be fair if he put in years and years of hard work, but you suddenly had an aha-moment and filed for the same idea first, and thus got all the benefits?
As one can see, it is not about fairness at all, and not even about being compensated for hard work. not who came up with the idea first. It's just a matter who filed for it first. There is no justice in this system; the idea you had can be the same idea anyone else had, at the same time, even. Therefor, there is (or at least should) no such thing as an idea that can be 'owned'. This is also why copyright differs on a basic level from patents: while the chance that anyone else writes the exact same book is nihil, having the same idea can happen all too easy.
And would it be 'fair' that someone else got a monopoly for 20 years for an idea that you had come up with independently, and maybe even earlier, but filed it one minute before you? Me thinks not. Let's face it: patents are not about fair compensation or inherent rights; they are issued for the benefit of the public at large and for the promotion of innovation.
If it doesn't do that, there is NO reason why anyone should get a state-ordained monopoly.
See http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/The-Fuzzy-Softwa re-Patent-Debate-Rages-On-40676.html
"Look Beyond the Rhetoric Leaders of the open-source software movement have long been harsh critics of software patents. The GPL itself says, "any free program is threatened constantly by software patents." The appeal contends that copyright provides adequate protection for the creations of software authors. The Appeal advocated reliance on copyright law, rather than patent law, for the protection of software.
Not long afterward, in late January, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee recommended scrapping the pending directive, extending the debate until at least the end of the year. There may ultimately be an EU software directive that affects the scope of software patenting in Europe, but not any time soon.
Once upon a time, we intellectual property lawyers got to live peacefully in our ivory towers. Those were the good old days. Now it seems that intellectual property policy issues have become fraught with partisan rhetoric. Most open-source promoters are against software patents. Most corporate spokesmen side with patents, period, whether they cover software or not. But it is worth looking beyond the rhetoric.
Copyright is an odd champion for the side of light. It would be neither original nor controversial to observe that copyright is an awkward scheme to protect computer software. At best, it is a square peg in a round hole. Before you take up the crusade of copyright, remember what it covers. Copying -- sounds like something you do to a book. Public performance -- sounds like a play or a film, right? Derivative works -- that sounds like an album by Vanilla Ice. This should be no surprise: The copyright law was written to cover books and music and plays and films.
Protecting Expression Copyright protects expression, not ideas. But software is not really all that expressive. When was the last time you went to a poetry reading and heard someone reciting C++? ("Wow, that recursive reference in his data structure was so deliciously ironic!") More important, software does not derive its value from expression; it derives its value from function. The fact that most software companies can get away with distributing software in object code form proves this point.
Code may be as elegant as a Chanel suit, but most people don't care. They want products to work, and they want software that makes them work. Users not only don't care how elegant code is, they actively don't want to know. I love my TiVo (Nasdaq: TIVO) and I love my PDA -- not because they contain lovely code, but because I will never have to see what code is in them. I know in my heart that I am not alone.
This makes protection of software via copyright tricky, because functional elements or ideas are not protected -- only expression. Not surprisingly, actually identifying software copyright infringement is like reading tea leaves. It's straightforward, of course, when someone wholesale copies a piece of software. This catches up the shameless counterfeiters. But people using software to develop products rarely copy software without modification.
If they re-write code, they can come up with a very different looking set of expression that performs the same function. Have they infringed the copyright? That is not so straightforward. The serious copyright battles are over the copying of bits and pieces, structures, design elements and so forth -- and applying copyright law to those cases is difficult, expensive and unpredictable.
Leave It to Lawyers Unless you are a copyright lawyer, you probably don't know that the rule for assessing infringement in several U.S. judiciary circuits is the "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test. The court will "first break down the allegedly infringed program into its constituent structural parts. Then, by examining each of these parts for such things as incorporated ideas, expression that is necessarily incidental to those idea
Slashdot Mirror
While it's ajoke on slashdot to say "Imagine a beowulfcluster of those", in this case, it could actually make sense.
Since those tags are produced en masse and you will get them whenever you buy (in the future), it will become trivial to get a huge bunch of them in a short time. Find a way to link them, and you could use them for building your own supercomputer.
Well, ok, you'll need all your walls covered by them, probably...though I once read they envisaged 16kb per tag, which would make it not all that farfetched.
Regardless, sooner or later some nerd will use it for creating his home-made weirdobox.
"Can use it for a Free Software piece of software? Nope."
Yes they CAN, provided they don't *sell* it. How comes I don't seem to get this point across?
Say, you have free/open software, and they GIVE it away (like sometimes can happen, like with knoppix-CD's), then they can use all the non-commercial stuff in there.
I agree that, in most commercial distro's, this won't help much because they do sell their products (exept for the free d/l many of them offer), but that's their choice. If they wan't to use it, they can, provided they don't sell the products - much like you can use GPL stuff, provided you abide to the rules of the licence.
Every licence knows its restrictions (apart from possibly BSD and public domain), but it doesn't mean one can not make use of them, it only means you can make use of them as long as you agree to the rules of the licences. In the case of (some) CC licences, this involves the condition that, if you want to use them, you may not sell it (or make a profit from; I'm not sure, and there is a distinction, ofcourse).
Since FLOSS products do have the posibility of being distributed without being sold - even in practise - they could certainly make use of non-commercial CC works in some cases.
hmm..I do think the parent poster has a point, though.
you say:"Oh, wait- non-commercial. Can't use it. Damn..."
But that's not actually true, is it? They CAN use it, provided they don't sell it. And this IS possible to do, at least for Open source/free software.
It's not being Brit/european or not that makes the most difference, but rather the anglo-saxon thingy. Look at all the native-english speaking countries: USA, UK, Australia...they all have the most stupid laws (especially concerning IP-rights and the trampling of civil rights) of any of the industrialised countries in the world.
;-)
A notable exeption is Canada, but then again, those are partially french.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong and the parent poster is right. Every author can choose what to do with his own code what he wants. This includes dual licencing: one can licence your own code under the gpl, but also under another licence (at the same time).
The "derived from" does not come into play, when he *only* takes *his* changes, and nothing else. Probably he wouldn't have anything working anymore, but in theory it's possible he rewrites from scratch all the other stuff, which would make the total of the prog not GPL'ed. (even though, at the same time, he could not retract those parts/changes he already released under the GPL as (also) falling under the GPL).
Hope this made the distinction more clear.
"There is also a general anti-European sentiment in the USA (and vice versa, of course, but the forms are different)."
Could you elaborate on that? (apart from the "Referring to the USA in European politics happens all the time")
This too, is a half truth. *software*patents are not perfectly valid, infact, they are illegal according to an EU directive of '73. Alas, due to 'creative' interpretation of the law and rules, the EPO (and in their following some - but not all - national patentoffices) have granted swp nevertheless.
Which leads to the current situation, where there are swp, though they are not really allowed, and that they could be used in court, but almost never are because any company trying it, has a good chance their swp will be deemed unvalid by the courts.
A clear and non-ambigious directive that makes it explicitkly unlawful to have swp in ALL EU countires wopuld solve all the current chaos.
"He went to Windows XP because he is completely addicted to Delta Force: Land Warrior and wanted to be able to play it again. And THAT is the hurdle for Linux on the desktop - not usability."
Yes, games is another matter. And I know it could be claimed that it's not the fault of Linux. And, while I agree for the large part, for joe doe that doesn't change all that much.
Yes, linux could be good enough for 'my granny'; if my granny only wants to browse and email, and not try out some new progs found on the Net. But, in all honesty: can one truelly say that any prog one can find for windows, is as easily installable (if you can find the same for linux in the first place) on Linux?
The moment you diverge from the truelly mainstream and well-known progs, you soon run into missing libs, tars and what not that just happen to fail on your particular distro, and god forbid, involves compiling. One can not expect a normal user to give up windows for an OS that (as he sees it) has all those problems. While oçne can rightfully say it's not all the fault of Linux istelf, it still remains a drawback.
I'm not saying this because I'm against linux, in fact, while I have hardly used the OS, I have frequently bought some distro's (mainly mandrake) just to support the development. But, if I have to give an honest impression as how user-friendly it is, it still falls short.
For ionstance, when my OS was installed (which I must( say went very well, even better then with win, in some instances), the desktop and browser was set in miniscule letters: I could hardly read anything. Now, ofcourse there were setting to change that, but try that with menus you can barely read on a strange OS. This was the case with my 8.2 as well as with the 9.2 version. It's not a huge problem, but it still is very annoying and frustrating spending hours just to be able to READ the letters on the desktop in the letters. And it's just those little things that do it, you know.
I have tried a lot of win OSses in my life, and for sure they weren't perfect, but I never had it start-up with letters almost too small to read. I do not doubt that Linux is technical superior, and a lot of the fault lies with the applications, and the installment went really well... but it should be possible to say what's still wrong with it, without being called names, me thinks.
"'World Stage' is a term used by European actors (particularly the French) who see international relations as some kind of parlor game."
This would denote the statement that most americans are clueless (etc), how, exactly? Whether "world stage" is a french term or not, what has that to do with it?
"In the US we are quite mindful of how we are percieved."
Actually, most don't bother, because, after all, the usa is "the greatest country in the world" and when push comes to shove, no other country (nor the perception of their foreign populace) really matters, right? Those that are more mindful and care about the views abroad, are by defintion going to be the more cosmopolitan in nature. I doubt many rednecks lay awake at night contemplating the negative view those pesky French and German people have of them.
"We just don't feel that negative perception is justified or that it is worth trading security for."
No doubt you feel it's not justified. That's why I respect the USA-individuals I spoke of earlier, because, against all odds (national-zealot reflex and all that), they DO realise that the negative perception is largely justified.
And you make a false argument by making it a diametrically oposed position; it's not OR having a positive perception and being unsafe OR having a negative perception and gaining security. That thought is absurd, and exactly shows the mentality that is resented in much of the rest of the world. Do you *actually* believe that you have to trade the one for the other, or are you only pretending to be as daft because you feel the 'euro-dudes are attacking my country again'?
There is no connection, let alone a causality between improving the perception abroad and security, and if there is one, it would be that security gets better if your relations abroad get better too, won't you think?
But, no, according to you it's not worth 'trading' security for. Only civil liberties are worth trading for it, it seems.
"No modern Linux desktop requires the user to compile things. You are being dishonest."
Well, make it yourself easy then, and say I'm dishonest about all the rest I said. I do not know what you read into it (I didn't say people had to compile anything to install Firefox, for instance), but my statement as such remains valid, whether you 'require' compiling or not, let alone installing libs. That would depend entirely on what you try to do on your box, or what you are trying to run.
"Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be retarded."
Well, don't take this the wrong way, but you might be the typical smug and arrogant bastard who thinks he has to insult people - while at the same time acting as if he doesn't - to try to make some point.
"Installing FireFox is as easy as following the instructions on the FireFox website. I can't even begin to comprehend how you managed to fail at this simple task despite trying for an entire week. I strongly recommend you seek professional help. "
Indeed, one would think so. Alas, the instructions did not work. As for that matter, in theory, it would have been even more simple to get it with urpmi and apt-get, but those failed too.
"Nonsense. Microsoft achieved desktop dominance without any such ease of use. MS-DOS was so difficult to use that it single-handedly created the PC desktop support industry."
Dude, there wasn't much of a choice back then. Do you actually think people would want to go back to DOS-commands, now that they are used to GUI? I don't understand your argument: what was enough to create a monopoly 20 years ago, isn't enough anymore today. That's why all major linux-distro's bring out GUIs too, you know.
"My strong belief is that price is the single greatest factor in winning the PC desktop. While there are many reasons why Windows beat GEM, GEOS, MacOS and OS/2, cost was the reason that mattered most."
Ofcourse cost is an important factor too; did I claim the contrary? But, in reality, many people make use of an illegal copy, or have win pre-installed, so they don't have or perceive the cost of it. Thus, while it's an advantage that Linux can be free (beer), it's not ALL that great an advantage compared to windows, in reality.
"If that were true then they'd all be buying Macintoshes. Ease of use is clearly overrated; it is only ever trotted out as an argument against Linux, but the same argument applies back in spades against Windows."
Macs cost too much for the ordinary users. And even if it were at exactly the same price today, the ease of use in win is good enough for most ppl, so they wouldn't change anyway, unless some other reasons prevail (such as looks/design). If the Macs had been allowed to be cloned in mass, and become as cheap as the other PC at the time that it first had a GUI, there is little doubt THEY would dominate the market today. But they missed that chance.
Now, it's all too easy to claim a person is dishonest and retarded, but rest assured it doesn't change the fact that Linux is not ready for prime time. It's the easy way out, isn't it? Don't acknowledge Linux is not as user-friendly as yet, just say the users giving critique are retarded.
No doubt that will bring Linux to the desktop much sooner.
"Maybe to you software is just a tool but to many others it's a core component in their business."
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I understand you can see things both ways, but if you are speaking of 'Linux on the desktop' then the above poster is right. Most people (as in non-tech-savvy joe doe users) just use their puter as a tool; to chat, to work, to download, etc. Some basic tasks is all they need, and they need it in a clear and user-friendly way.
They do not want, nor need nor even would like to try 'compiling' things or having to install some obscure libs just to get something running. They need something simple and easy to use to get what they want, and political, ideological and tech-savvy issues are not a prime concern for them. I think the Linux crowd, being tech-savvy themselves, all too often fail to realise this truth.
And, frankly, while Linux came a long way, they are still not there. I myself, for instance, while I'd consider myself more tech-savvy then most joe doe users, am a newbie at linux, and the last week, I have tried to download firefox on my mandrake box. After a week, I still don't have it installed and ready to use. Sure, I've searched for help, and (linux)people are mostly willing to help me out, but I just don't seem to get it working. It's download a lib here and a lib there or it doesn't work, use apt-get or urpmi or something else, use the commandline and fill in commands I never heard before...but all to no avail, as yet. I just need a simple, clear klick-and-install thingy, goddamnit. Which would be an rpm, I heard, but somehow, my standard KDE browser doesn't want to d/l the only place I could find one, probably because it was ftp. And I could use another browser, if that weren't exactly what I was trying to d/l and install.
Compare that with surfing to the firefox-site, and klick on the exe on the site, and all is done automatically, with windows.
THAT is the sort of ease-of-use that Linux needs, before it ever is going to have a chance to break through on the desktop.
make exlusions for some countries. Take Iceland, for instance; even now, it already has an enormous amount of alternative energy, and it plans on completely replacing oil/gas products by 'green' energy within 10 years, I believe. And I actually think they can do it.
But does that mean any country can do the same?
Ofcourse not. Iceland has huge reservoires of geothermal sources, which can be used quite effectively. Try the same with almost any other country and you will fail.
Thus, it's dangerous to generalise. If every country had geothermal sources, or rivers and space in aboundance to provide for huge dams, or large stretches of land where the wind can blow unobstructed...well, yes, then it might be a solution.
In reality, this isn't true for most countries, and it certainly isn't true for mine (which I was aluding at, btw). I dunno how Denmark does it, but let's say they have placed windmills on their shores, and they covered 10% of their beaches with windmills...denmark having lots of coastal area. For the same effect, countries that have ten times less shore, would effectively place 100% of their beaches full; something that people just won't accept.
This simple example already shows how difficult it is to translate from one country to another. So I don't say it's technical impossible to derive 20% of ones' energy from windmills, even here...but at what cost? In reality, this is pretty doubtfull ever to happen, unless your country is suited to handle these things.
And, lastly, let's not forget those windmills, even in Denmark, are heavily subsidised. If they had to compete in a normal way, they wouldn't stand a chance untill coal and the lot doubled in price.
"We're talking about less than 1/2 of 1% of the total ocean area. Did anybody consider what would happen before we altered 25% or more of the total land area, or before we started harvesting 90% of the population of various ocean species?"
No, but we should have learned something from that, right?
I agree with your assessement that it "probably' will not cause much damage - but that was said about windmills too, untill they discovered it did disturb the breeding of some birds. So, even when unlikely, one still have to research the impact. And sometimes, this is difficult to asses: we've been using sonar for decennia, for instance, but only now science has discovered it may cause severe (and permanent) damage for some species of whales, sometimes leading to death. And there aren't all that much whales to begin with.
So, envirronment is an unknown, really.
"That's why it's good modern technology has brought us GPS, radar and RFID. "
All those things can not exclude accidents even today, however, and it would become worse if giant amounts of floating platforms are put in the oceans.
"There are similar questions about fossil fuels, like would it be economically viable to dig thousands of wells from floating ocean platforms miles into the earth's crust."
Exactly my point. They didn't start right away with building thousands of oilplatforms; they tried it out first. And that was AFTER they made a good economical assessement (environment only came to be important later). And that, in turn, could be based because they already had a pretty good idea of how much those oil-platforms could bring up, and at what price; things we are largely unfamiliar with, with these new forms of alternative powergenerators.
So, first it has to be tried out experimentally, but as yet all those alternative systems have rather known a limited succes. And even then, I think the hybrid forms of wind/wave generators have more potential then solarplatforms, I must say.
But, realistically speaking, I just don't see those forms to ever become the main supplier of energy. And, to me, the most logical approach is continuing with coal and especially nuclear, untill the alternate energysources really have matured, or even better, fusion has been reached in a workable way.
And, while I agree with your assessemnt that CO2 and global warming is a much greater threat to us then the influence solarplatforms on the ocean may have, I find it strange that you don't use the same reasoning with nuclear facilities.
Indeed, there are problems, especially with the radio-active waste, but those porblems pale in comparison with the problem global warming is going to cause. And seen it's the logical choice for the short and mid-term , it's no wonder that former green-icons - but luckily logical scientist, like Lovelock, have turned around and indeed are now supporting this view. Nuclear may not be perfect, but it really IS the best solution for now. And uranium will eventually be depleted, true, as will coal, but it will bide us the time in a realistic way untill we come up with a true and better solution.
I'm a white agnostic.
I dunno what point you are trying to make, but you sure use few (none) arguments to make it.
Are you claiming your relations with Muslims are all that exellent, especially after 9/11? I think some thousands of Muslims whome were arrested without any charge may disagree. And I guess their are no racist attitudes anymore neither?
Yeah, right.
All people are prejudiced, including 'my' people, and denying that is the first problem. Once you realise that, you can begin adressing it. But ofcourse, there is an inherent difference between basing ones' viepoint on, say, the color of skin, which can not be held, and judging someone based on their actions. I would strongly combat the former, but I reserve the right to judge someone - including a country - according to their actions. I do it with my country, even.
But where do that bring us in regard to the clichés? Exactly on the same spot as what I said earlier: a lot of clichés have a grain of truth in it, yet the danger lies in making it absolute. Someone denying the first is an idiot and denying the latter makes him a dangerous fool. You seem to invoke a racist or religious background for it, where there is none: I wasn't speaking about other 'races' (which is a misnomer to begin with). but there are cultural differences, even among 'whites', and, while clichés don't give a clear picture of any of them, the more general and persistant ones, DO have something of truth in it. (Take the German 'Punktlichkeit'; do you think this is purely imagined or biased? Forget it; it actually describes the mentality in this regard of most germans.)
Anyway, you are happily using terms like 'moronic' and 'bigoted attitude', but your conclusion is false, and I sincerely hope you reject my 'silly notions' out of better grounds then you just posted.
Ah, yes, that's all very nice in theory, but alas not very plausable to work in reality (a bit like communism).
Something the size of alaska? Who would actually build it? Seems a bit overstreched for one country. A group of countries, then? What about the third world? And where exactly would you build it? You say; the ocean, but minimise the possible problems with that concept (much as windmills here in my country). In theory, we could perhaps create 20% of our energy that way, if we put every square meter of our beach full with them. In reality, we all know that isn't going to happen, because no-one wants that, ppl find it disturbing, environmental issues are abound (nesting birds, etc), etc.
The same goes with your proposal. You claim it wouldn't impact the environment; but how do you know? Did you have any studies on it? Isn't it possible that sea-life dependen on the sun, would get affected? Will it not become a burden to the sea-routes and a danger to ships? Who would be legally responsable? What if they are layed in international waters? What is the cost of maintainance? How many will get wrecked by storms? Will it be economical viable?
All these questions need a reasonable answer, before even contemplating it. And I think that, in practise, such a project would not work, certainly not without having considerable drawbacks, and it being not economical viable.
In fact, if you are pondering about sea-floating power-units, there are already hybrid wind/wave generators (or detailed plans thereof) that show a lot more potential then mere solarcells. But even those are not yet build, or at least not in large numbers, because their are also considerable doubts on their viability. And one has to wonder what countries will have to do that don't have large coastal areas or sea-access.
I'm afraid it's not at all that rosy, in regard to alternative energies. It shouldn't stop us researching, ofcourse, but I fear many greenish dudes are simply letting their judgement be clouded with self-delusions. I mean, c'mon: even with giant breakthroughs, mass-production, reduced costs, etc. Their are inherent limits to almost all alternative energies. You can't build windmills on every square meter, you can't continue to build geothermal powerhouses (provided you have that option in the first place), nor classic waterpower by dams. Their are is a rather limited possibility for it, especially in a lot of smaller european countries.
And what if there is no wind for some days, or no sunshine? Sure, you could provide some redundancy, but it still is a fact those energysources are not providing a steady, regular stream or amount of power, which makes it harder to manage. The only possible exeption are probably wave-powergenerators.
No, the real solution will come when we can build (economical) workable fusionreactors. Untill then, coal, oil and nuclear will remain the main energy-provider, some countries (like Iceland) excluded, ofcourse.
On an individual level, I do see a future for solar-energy, ofcourse, but I doubt it will have a huge impact at a household, untill the moment it becomes viable to have enough electricity for everything we do now, derived from an area the size of your roof-top, even when half of the time it doesn't see any sun.
I'm all for alternative energies, but the problem is rather the unrealistic views some (especially the greens) have of it.
It's not as much a question of *IF* it helps when their is alternative energy available, but rather the amount it can replace - at least, when you are diosmantling (as happens in my country) nuclear powerplants that provide about 60% of the total power. This was due thanks to the pressure of the greens. No-one seemed to have wondered at that time, where that energy should come from in the future - apart from some nonsensical crap about windmills and the lot.
Ofcourse, it's plainly obvious that those won't do by a long stretch, so then it DOES become important to know how much it can replace. Solar can't do it, not even a tenth of the required energy. Neither can wind. Or hydro. Or geothermal. Or biofuel. And all taken together, they STILL wouldn't replace more then half of what is needed today, let alone in 5 years, when nuclear powerplants are shut down.
In fact, from your entire list, only two CAN have a reasonable chance of providing enough energy now and in the future; and those are nuclear and/or coal.
I think that's what ppl mean, when they say alternative energies are not real options as yet. Sure, anything that helps is welcome, but in any realistic viepoint, ALL of the above mentionned energysources - apart from nuclear and fossile fuels - even combined together will NOT be make more then a drop in the ever power-hungry ocean, at least in large parts of the western world.
I think the only real solution is fusion. But untill that because viable, the use of coal will rise, alternative energies will remain largely a fringe activity (at least on large scale demand) and closing down nuclear reactions without providing real alternatives remain political idiocies without equal in a socio-economic sense.
"I think Europeans stereotype Americans and their views too narrowly. It makes America easier to understand for them maybe."
Yes, OR maybe that's an easy excuse to downplay any critique on Amerikans and the USA from us europeans.
For sure, there is a danger in using clichés and stereotypes, but it is also true, that those clichés *DO* hold a lot of water. Actually, I can't say I know of any well-established cliché about the nature of a people, that didn't had some truth in it. And that includes those of my own people/country, even though I would be hardpressed to acknowledge them in public. (Something which most USA-citizens seem to have too, only in a bigger national-zealot-reflex manner).
But actually, they ARE true, to a large extend.
The danger comes from turning that cliché into an absolute viewpoint: that ALL europeans or americans are like that. Being rational and honest, no one can actually claim such a thing, of course. So, while I may think that, in general, the USA - and especially it's current government - is arrogant, narrow-minded, uncritical and downright hypocrite idiots, I temper this viewpoint with the knowledge the USA also had and has critical thinkers and rebels that show signs of independend thought, intelligence and a cosmopolitan attitude, like Carl Sagan, M.Moore, R.Stallman and some others I've come to know by their work. Those people certainly deserve respect.
It does not follow the USA as a whole deserves respect. Certainly not like things are going currently. However you want to turn it, you must realise that the USA is behaving like a bully, and is increasingly acting - especially since the end of the cold war - like the world is their backyard where they can do what they want.
This is not surprising, since they ARE currently the only true superpower left, and being the strongest (as bullies usually go), they think everything is permitted. Sooner or later, they will discover their error.
"'Travelling' in general is a right. Travelling by plane (and using this specific airlines) is not a right."
I'm sorry, are you implying there is a law somewhere that says travelling is a right, exept when you want to take an airplane? With that definite exclusion? As a law?
I don't think so.
The poster that replied to you might have been a bit undiplomatic, but he's right in essence.
It is not "exactly the same thing" as a mortgage; you have no law saying you have the inherent right on a morgage. You DO have a law (at least in my country) which say you are free to go as you please. And even if there is such a law, it's completely nuts to say it is secret and can't be viewed by the public. Especially when the citizens are supposed to know the laws of the country.
It is true, one always has a choice (in this case, to go or not to go), but the question rather is, if this choice does not contradict the rights of freedom you DO have, as a citizen. That's what John Gilmore is going to find out, and I'm glad that he has the time and resources to do it. Myself, I must confess, would act like the myriads of other sheep, with the difference I would do it out of blind obiedience, but simply because, in a pragmatic view, I can't spare the energy to fight this, especially when I really *have* to be flown there at a certain time. Not everyone can afford the luxery of (costly legal) fighting for our rights, but I'm sure glad as hell *some* can.
A valid remark, though I prefer to use plain text, and with your suggestions, that won't do (unless you actually want to see the tag ;-).
But I'm quite confident a reader who pays attention - even when missing the end " - would notice the change of heart of my comments vs. the body quoted, seen the fact they comment on what was said above in the form of critique.
Ofcourse, I'm also well aware that such readers and slashdotters may not share much common traits, so I'll try to make it a bit more obvious in the future.
(me coughs)
:-)
So, basically, you agree, then. Because, ofcourse, you saw that I was quoting from an url-source (from an IPlawyer) and you read the comments I wrote at the bottom, no doubt.
So the "you" you are refering to, is the IPlawyer, right?
So, basically, you agree, then. Because, ofcourse, you saw that I was quoting from an url-source (from an IPlawyer) and you read the comments I wrote at the bottom, no doubt.
:-)
So the "you" you are refering to, is the IPlawyer, right?
"Value of a car whan anyone can take it, value of land in Darfur, Sudan?"
Let's take your examples as a hypothetical situation. You seem to imply, that no value exists, outside the legal scope, but actually, the value lies simply in what people find valuable.
The error you make in your example, is that you confront two diametrically oposed forces: when you say "when anyone can take it', you mean: take it away. Therefor, you let a group deprive another group, just like one does with legal means. Now, you said outside a legal structure, but in effect, you replace it by military might or simple 'rule of the strong'. This replaces the normal legal structure, but does it diminish the value of the car? Aparently not, certainly not to those grabbing it - otherwise, they wouldn't bother to steal it in the first place. It's for the people that DON'T have the force to defend themselves that the value of having a car diminuishes.
But, let's imagine that cars or land truelly can be taken by anyone. so: you take it from me, but I can take it back, or from someone else, without any hassle. Then what: would cars lose their value? As a token of private ownership (or just as a manner to show off), yes. But cars would still be valued because it is easy for transportation, etc.
Ofcourse, this would never work in reality, as communism has shown, but the point is, even when following your hypothetical example, things do not lose their worth per sé, if/when others can take it, provided you can take the same back - and if the device in question is useful, ofcourse.
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing the 314th trol comming along with the "if I have worked hard and long, and put a lot of work and energy into it, why shouldn't I be able to patent my idea/software/method?"
First of all, as others (such as Halo1) and myself have already pointed out, there is no inherent right for a 'fair compensation' by a patent. A patent is a monopoly, given by the state, because it (is supposed to) promote innovation. For all those claiming to be capitalists: a monopoly given by the state does not sound all that capitalistic, does it?
But regardless: if it doesn't achieve it's goal of promoting innovation, it should not be granted, period.
But secondly, let's assume to agree with the 'I've earned it'-concept. Would that, in effect, be fair? Patents, these days, are more about ideas then anything else: even the original needed working model isn't any longer necessary... so, is it 'fair' to be compensated for an idea?
Well, imagine some other dude thought of the same idea a little bit later then you, but he gets to the patent-office first, and he gets the patent...where does that leave you? Shouldn't you be compensated for 'all the hard work and energy' you put in the idea? And imagine you were first to apply for it, but he had the actual idea first, independently from you...shouldn't it be 'fair' that he get compensated for his energy and work? Would it be fair if he put in years and years of hard work, but you suddenly had an aha-moment and filed for the same idea first, and thus got all the benefits?
As one can see, it is not about fairness at all, and not even about being compensated for hard work. not who came up with the idea first. It's just a matter who filed for it first. There is no justice in this system; the idea you had can be the same idea anyone else had, at the same time, even. Therefor, there is (or at least should) no such thing as an idea that can be 'owned'. This is also why copyright differs on a basic level from patents: while the chance that anyone else writes the exact same book is nihil, having the same idea can happen all too easy.
And would it be 'fair' that someone else got a monopoly for 20 years for an idea that you had come up with independently, and maybe even earlier, but filed it one minute before you? Me thinks not. Let's face it: patents are not about fair compensation or inherent rights; they are issued for the benefit of the public at large and for the promotion of innovation.
If it doesn't do that, there is NO reason why anyone should get a state-ordained monopoly.
Halo, something of interest:
/ 14 45225&threshold=1&tid=153&tid=217
:-(
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24
You once told me there was no 'stepping stone'-issue when it comes to free-speech (or the limitation thereof).
Alas, another step seems to have been taken regardless...
(And, not surprisingly, starting in Germany)
See http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/The-Fuzzy-Softwa re-Patent-Debate-Rages-On-40676.html
"Look Beyond the Rhetoric
Leaders of the open-source software movement have long been harsh critics of software patents. The GPL itself says, "any free program is threatened constantly by software patents." The appeal contends that copyright provides adequate protection for the creations of software authors. The Appeal advocated reliance on copyright law, rather than patent law, for the protection of software.
Not long afterward, in late January, the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee recommended scrapping the pending directive, extending the debate until at least the end of the year. There may ultimately be an EU software directive that affects the scope of software patenting in Europe, but not any time soon.
Once upon a time, we intellectual property lawyers got to live peacefully in our ivory towers. Those were the good old days. Now it seems that intellectual property policy issues have become fraught with partisan rhetoric. Most open-source promoters are against software patents. Most corporate spokesmen side with patents, period, whether they cover software or not. But it is worth looking beyond the rhetoric.
Copyright is an odd champion for the side of light. It would be neither original nor controversial to observe that copyright is an awkward scheme to protect computer software. At best, it is a square peg in a round hole. Before you take up the crusade of copyright, remember what it covers. Copying -- sounds like something you do to a book. Public performance -- sounds like a play or a film, right? Derivative works -- that sounds like an album by Vanilla Ice. This should be no surprise: The copyright law was written to cover books and music and plays and films.
Protecting Expression
Copyright protects expression, not ideas. But software is not really all that expressive. When was the last time you went to a poetry reading and heard someone reciting C++? ("Wow, that recursive reference in his data structure was so deliciously ironic!") More important, software does not derive its value from expression; it derives its value from function. The fact that most software companies can get away with distributing software in object code form proves this point.
Code may be as elegant as a Chanel suit, but most people don't care. They want products to work, and they want software that makes them work. Users not only don't care how elegant code is, they actively don't want to know. I love my TiVo (Nasdaq: TIVO) and I love my PDA -- not because they contain lovely code, but because I will never have to see what code is in them. I know in my heart that I am not alone.
This makes protection of software via copyright tricky, because functional elements or ideas are not protected -- only expression. Not surprisingly, actually identifying software copyright infringement is like reading tea leaves. It's straightforward, of course, when someone wholesale copies a piece of software. This catches up the shameless counterfeiters. But people using software to develop products rarely copy software without modification.
If they re-write code, they can come up with a very different looking set of expression that performs the same function. Have they infringed the copyright? That is not so straightforward. The serious copyright battles are over the copying of bits and pieces, structures, design elements and so forth -- and applying copyright law to those cases is difficult, expensive and unpredictable.
Leave It to Lawyers
Unless you are a copyright lawyer, you probably don't know that the rule for assessing infringement in several U.S. judiciary circuits is the "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test. The court will "first break down the allegedly infringed program into its constituent structural parts. Then, by examining each of these parts for such things as incorporated ideas, expression that is necessarily incidental to those idea