I think they key difference is that I think that people do retain ownership of ideas/information (After all -- nobody else came up with it; they did, and only them). As such, I think they have the right to determine where it goes and how it's used -- and not the end user
I agree. I personally think the very nature of information makes it impossible to have "owners": the concept of property is something that can be applied only to physical objects (because they are non-sharable objects: if tomorrow someone comes with an inexpensive magic copying device for objects, atom for atom, I think physical objects too would fall under "information") . Information IMHO can have creators, but not owners. That's the difference between our philosophies.
Or you will use it to surf the web, listen to music, play games, burn CDs, and various other day-to-day tasks that involve using it as a tool instead of just 'information'?
When you read a manual, is it a work of art or a tool?
OS X is information in the sense that it is a long string of bits. It's information in the purest mathematical sense. Information that codes for a useful tool, yes. What's the problem? It could code the human genome, or folk hawaiian music, for what it matters.
I don't care about what is the destination or content of information. I simply don't want anything that controls the flow of information itself. Period.
don't hide behind 'ethical information sharing' -- it's still stealing.
I'm not hiding. We're simply giving two different meanings to the same fact. To me, sharing information (and tools) is all but stealing. It's a natural right, and it's totally wrong that today economic and political forces are preventing me to exercise this natural right. To you is "stealing". I just remind you that stealing physical objects is criminal because you prevent me to use the object you've stolen from me -something that doesn't happen when copying information. I don't feel like "stealing-but-oh-I-have-an-excuse". I simply think stealing is a very different thing.
Undeniable my ass. So-called "piracy" (i.e. sharing of information) is all but unethical -in fact, i find it *highly* ethical, and I find anything that hurts it highly unethical. People who made the work should be paid, but there are other means to obtain payment without hurting my undeniable right to share information -the "p2p tax" that France is currently proposing is just one of these.
The cdrdao on some distributions does not burn data dvd+rw 's that others can read while drawing data from my vfat ie w98 partition.
eh? My mother language is not English, so please can you explain? Do you mean something like "if I burn a data dvd+rw with data read from a vfat partition, the resulting dvd+rw won't be readable by other operating systems?"
We are not talking about what do people listen today. We are talking about what is a copy, in absolute sense, or not.
And your cell ringtone example proves my point. A cell ringtone is clonable with high fidelity with just memory and some skills. Therefore it shows my point: listening a tune can be copying. The fact that in most cases it is practically not is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that, at least potentially, the brain is an information copy device.
No, I do not believe that constitutes a "copy", because it is not exactly the same as the source material.
Silly-but-not-so-much example. I hear an odd version of "Fur Elise" made with MIDI. I recognize the sounds used. I redo it back. It wouldn't be exactly the same, but it would be really close.
In your opinion, translations are not copies, since they're not exactly the same as the source.
But people copied books in ancient times (even Cicero or Seneca mentioned it, IIRC). And guess what? copies are just what led us actually know the culture of these lost centuries.
What would you do in year 3000 A.C. of a DRMed CD-ROM of which all keys have been lost?
If I hear music, and I play it again by memory, and I record it, is it copy? Copyright people tend to say "yes": if you're a musician, you have to pay when playing covers. But all information to do the cover has just been in my head at least in a moment of the copying process.
I wouldn't like you taking credit: this would be lying. That is an entirely different issue than copyright. Moreover, my credit does not place any significant scarcity, and it costs zero. For anything else, yes, I'd love if you copy and distribute things I create.
These statistics are important because (1)They are a thermometer of one of the first OSS product that impacted everyday's desktops (2)More Firefox on the desktops means a Web more adherent to standards. If 99.999% of people were using IE, chances are in a 10 years HTML/XHTML/Javascript will be replaced with a cumbersome, obfuscated MS proprietary format. Then, using Firefox would become quite pointless.
I'd just hope to have back Google Zeitgeist statistics on browser and OS usage...
1) - EndNote.
I'm keeping a WindowsXP partition on my lab PC and a copy of Office installed on it only for this purpose. I looked into Pybliographer but it's simply not good enough (pretty unstable, cumbersome bugs) and too much LyX/LaTeX oriented (I'd LOVE to use LaTeX at work, but I can't,alas), I also spent some time looking at the code to improve it: it's good Python, but uhm, I don't like it. I'm seriously considering writing a replacement.
2) - FruityLoops, Reaktor, Traktor etc.
There is no music-generating and mixing software for Linux that AFAIK comes even *close* to proprietary windows solutions. However seems FruityLoops 4 COULD work on the latest versions of Wine. The audio output on my machine is horrible, but I think the problem is my audio setup on the Linux side.
I also can't see why people who write Windows apps can't recompile them for Linux against the Winelibs. This would give 99.999% Linux compatibility (at least on x86) with very minor tweakings to the codebase (AFAIK). Can someone explain me why can't this happen?
If you want CMYK management/conversion, you can still process your images using ImageMagick. In my lab we often need CMYK images for publishing, and we do it with a simple "convert".
Yes, I will find all the information I will need to show incredible design from an incredible designer.
Your post does not offer proof or an answer to my question, but merely an invitation to do my own research.
My friend, that's science. Real science is not simple. Real science cannot be summed up in a couple of words on/. I am a Ph.D. student, this means I did a LOT of hard work to have a grasp of these subjects. I'm sorry, but your ranting on your armchair means nothing.
Study molecular genomics, study comparative genomics, study bioinformatics. Apply them. Look at the known genome sequences of protozoa and metazoa. Sequence them if the available sequences don't fit your needs. If you do it with the proper technical knowledge, you will find the only senseful conclusion is evolution of the second from the first. If you want startpoints on the subject my advices are Lewin's "Genes" and Albert's "Molecular Biology of the Cell".
You don't even have a grasp of what evolution is: the "watchmaker" argument (if there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker) you're doing is a known logical fallacy. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for a critic of the subject. Evolution is not chance alone.
Slashdot Mirror
grandparent: "My school spends millions of dollars on MS contracts and has to upgrade their contracted Dell computers all the time just to keep pace."
parent: You don't seem to have any argument other than "I WANNA".
Well, the MS-driven waste of money looks like a very strong and practical, real-world argument to me.
I think they key difference is that I think that people do retain ownership of ideas/information (After all -- nobody else came up with it; they did, and only them). As such, I think they have the right to determine where it goes and how it's used -- and not the end user
I agree. I personally think the very nature of information makes it impossible to have "owners": the concept of property is something that can be applied only to physical objects (because they are non-sharable objects: if tomorrow someone comes with an inexpensive magic copying device for objects, atom for atom, I think physical objects too would fall under "information") . Information IMHO can have creators, but not owners. That's the difference between our philosophies.
Or you will use it to surf the web, listen to music, play games, burn CDs, and various other day-to-day tasks that involve using it as a tool instead of just 'information'?
When you read a manual, is it a work of art or a tool?
OS X is information in the sense that it is a long string of bits. It's information in the purest mathematical sense. Information that codes for a useful tool, yes. What's the problem? It could code the human genome, or folk hawaiian music, for what it matters.
I don't care about what is the destination or content of information. I simply don't want anything that controls the flow of information itself. Period.
don't hide behind 'ethical information sharing' -- it's still stealing.
I'm not hiding. We're simply giving two different meanings to the same fact. To me, sharing information (and tools) is all but stealing. It's a natural right, and it's totally wrong that today economic and political forces are preventing me to exercise this natural right. To you is "stealing". I just remind you that stealing physical objects is criminal because you prevent me to use the object you've stolen from me -something that doesn't happen when copying information. I don't feel like "stealing-but-oh-I-have-an-excuse". I simply think stealing is a very different thing.
(which is *licensed*, not owned)
That's the flaw in the system.
undeniable truth that piracy is unethical
Undeniable my ass. So-called "piracy" (i.e. sharing of information) is all but unethical -in fact, i find it *highly* ethical, and I find anything that hurts it highly unethical. People who made the work should be paid, but there are other means to obtain payment without hurting my undeniable right to share information -the "p2p tax" that France is currently proposing is just one of these.
Aren't you sure to spell it phlogiston ?
The cdrdao on some distributions does not burn data dvd+rw 's that others can read while drawing data from my vfat ie w98 partition .
eh? My mother language is not English, so please can you explain? Do you mean something like "if I burn a data dvd+rw with data read from a vfat partition, the resulting dvd+rw won't be readable by other operating systems?"
And, is it a K3b or a cdrdao issue?
Best Troll Ever?
We are not talking about what do people listen today. We are talking about what is a copy, in absolute sense, or not.
And your cell ringtone example proves my point. A cell ringtone is clonable with high fidelity with just memory and some skills. Therefore it shows my point: listening a tune can be copying. The fact that in most cases it is practically not is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that, at least potentially, the brain is an information copy device.
No, I do not believe that constitutes a "copy", because it is not exactly the same as the source material.
Silly-but-not-so-much example. I hear an odd version of "Fur Elise" made with MIDI. I recognize the sounds used. I redo it back. It wouldn't be exactly the same, but it would be really close.
In your opinion, translations are not copies, since they're not exactly the same as the source.
But people copied books in ancient times (even Cicero or Seneca mentioned it, IIRC). And guess what? copies are just what led us actually know the culture of these lost centuries.
What would you do in year 3000 A.C. of a DRMed CD-ROM of which all keys have been lost?
Do you really expect companies that are making money from the sale of music and movies to just sit back and accept it?
Problem is, such companies should not exist.
If I hear music, and I play it again by memory, and I record it, is it copy? Copyright people tend to say "yes": if you're a musician, you have to pay when playing covers. But all information to do the cover has just been in my head at least in a moment of the copying process.
I wouldn't like you taking credit: this would be lying. That is an entirely different issue than copyright. Moreover, my credit does not place any significant scarcity, and it costs zero. For anything else, yes, I'd love if you copy and distribute things I create.
I'm not a native speaker of English. Can you explain me the semantic shift between War ON Terror and War AGAINST Terror?
USA.
This way we're already to ten: former asteroid 1 Ceres would surely be a planet, following your definition! Cool.
But the phrase "It only works with Windows" is still flashing.
These statistics are important because (1)They are a thermometer of one of the first OSS product that impacted everyday's desktops (2)More Firefox on the desktops means a Web more adherent to standards. If 99.999% of people were using IE, chances are in a 10 years HTML/XHTML/Javascript will be replaced with a cumbersome, obfuscated MS proprietary format. Then, using Firefox would become quite pointless.
I'd just hope to have back Google Zeitgeist statistics on browser and OS usage...
1) - EndNote.
I'm keeping a WindowsXP partition on my lab PC and a copy of Office installed on it only for this purpose. I looked into Pybliographer but it's simply not good enough (pretty unstable, cumbersome bugs) and too much LyX/LaTeX oriented (I'd LOVE to use LaTeX at work, but I can't,alas), I also spent some time looking at the code to improve it: it's good Python, but uhm, I don't like it. I'm seriously considering writing a replacement.
2) - FruityLoops, Reaktor, Traktor etc.
There is no music-generating and mixing software for Linux that AFAIK comes even *close* to proprietary windows solutions. However seems FruityLoops 4 COULD work on the latest versions of Wine. The audio output on my machine is horrible, but I think the problem is my audio setup on the Linux side.
I also can't see why people who write Windows apps can't recompile them for Linux against the Winelibs. This would give 99.999% Linux compatibility (at least on x86) with very minor tweakings to the codebase (AFAIK). Can someone explain me why can't this happen?
To me giving them DOCs is giving them shit. Heavy, poorly portable (across Word versions), often corrupted documents.
If you want CMYK management/conversion, you can still process your images using ImageMagick. In my lab we often need CMYK images for publishing, and we do it with a simple "convert".
Yes, I will find all the information I will need to show incredible design from an incredible designer. Your post does not offer proof or an answer to my question, but merely an invitation to do my own research.
My friend, that's science. Real science is not simple. Real science cannot be summed up in a couple of words on /. I am a Ph.D. student, this means I did a LOT of hard work to have a grasp of these subjects. I'm sorry, but your ranting on your armchair means nothing.
Study molecular genomics, study comparative genomics, study bioinformatics. Apply them. Look at the known genome sequences of protozoa and metazoa. Sequence them if the available sequences don't fit your needs. If you do it with the proper technical knowledge, you will find the only senseful conclusion is evolution of the second from the first. If you want startpoints on the subject my advices are Lewin's "Genes" and Albert's "Molecular Biology of the Cell".
You don't even have a grasp of what evolution is: the "watchmaker" argument (if there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker) you're doing is a known logical fallacy. Read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for a critic of the subject. Evolution is not chance alone.
Do you have any information that proves protozoa evolved into a metazoa
Check their genome sequences, you'll find all the info you will need.
Sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choanoflagellata .