But "closed source" encyclopedia's define truth because [insert long ass description of QA, validation and verifaction procedures] and the "open source" wikipedia is inherently unreliable overall because "you don't know who wrote the article, or even if it's true or not". OR, the commercial interests in publishing "academic materials" have a lot vested in their business model and are spreading that FUD - because they can't compete in the digital age of information sharing.
While the ideas that made firefox awesome are not ground breaking (best trait was it's faithful support of standards) or even patentable (plenty of prior art for plugin-install-wizards, tabbed browsing, popup blocking, search toolbars, etc), the source code to firefox is protected under a bunch of different licenses, including the GNU GPL and LGPL. So Microsoft *might* be able to use it, but then they would have to pay Mozilla Foundation for it (LGPL I believe) and if they made any changes, they'd have to publish their work back to the community - which would violate the tenets of the "closed source is more secure" assault model they are employing against linux et al.
Re: the media - they recieved Firefox extremely well, what makes you think the UNbribed authors (in the know) won't be married to their Firefox by then, and be just as skeptical of IE's utility as an FF alternative as the/. beeeatches?
And as far as a (real) developer's standpoint, two things matter:
1)standards support 2)platform support
Call me when I can write a webapp using js/css/html/dhtml and it renders the same across windows and *nix under MSIE. See that catch? Yea, FF fills that niche quite nicely, IE is relegated to being monopoly fodder.
Explain to them that the entire world is run by computers, and by doing things in the computer, you can affect the "real world". Then hack the school lunch network while they watch and transfer everybodies lunch money into your kids account.
"And now you all have to ask Tommy for lunch, because Tommy knows computers, and you don't!"
Not a direct endorsement for software design, but it'll get them to see nerds in a whole new way. Oh, then teach your kid how to fight.
Is it really like breaking into BEST BUY and stealing CDs' and movies ?
Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ talks about this issue, and does a pretty good job of arguing that the theft of "tangible property" like a music CD, and the theft of (or violation of) "copyright property" are not exactly the same crime:
When you walk into Camelot Music, and take the latest Snoop Dog CD off the shelf, then Camelot Music has one less CD to sell. Camelot then will have to consider the loss of 15 bucks or whatever it is, because they can't replace that CD for free.
This isn't the case when you download an "unpermissioned" copy of the same work. The way digital technology works, copies are perfect and infinitely low in cost. The value assigned to the copy (of the copyright protected content) is determined by the author, or publishing company - because the physical, or "real" world attributes no value to the copy since it is so easy to reproduce... infinitely.
There is the view that, because you downloaded the content for free illegally, then the money you WOULD have paid is what was lost in profit. Well, that begs the question: Is it absolute that the content you acquired for free would be content that you would have paid for had it not been available for free. RIAA rejects that argument, saying "If you want it at all, then the law says you pay, it doesn't matter if you wouldn't have it if it weren't available for free... that's irrelevant." That's a redirection though - the question wasn't "does it violate copyright law", yes it does. The question was "is it the same as the theft of tangibles".
The paradox of copyrighted content having no actual value and instead only the artificial author-determined law-enforced cost is a recent development. It comes with the digital territory. Thank about it: Books - the original copyrighted material, had to be printed and published (which cost money) and on ACTUAL paper (which kills trees AND costs money) - so this is really the first time in history that copyrights have been so trivial to violate. The trivialness is what makes it's tremendous penalization so absurd. Think about this:
A doctor can cut off your left leg - when you really had a problem with your right leg. Penalty for malpractice? $250,000. max. And that act of butchery requires the negligence of a highly trained professional and (probably) a team of highly qualified peeers. Tons of prep go into a surgery like that, and measures are taken to, in theory, ENSURE that you the patient know WHAT is going to be lopped off.
Compare that to the mere act of a teenager (with probaby little to no knowledge of what a copyright is - thanks public school!) downloading all those PHAT TUNES marketed to them nonstop... and they get it for free, and burn it to CD to listen to with their friends. That teen lands their family smack dab in the middle of a multi million dollar law suit.
Someones earlier post mentioned that law is supposed to promote the general welfare. Is it not blindingly obvious that, in Mr. Lessig's terms, the law has been "queered" to benefit the uber rich?
There ought to be a balance between the flow of content into the public domain (so that culture may be promoted and built upon) and the regulation of content ( rights gauranteed to the author for a sufficient amount of time so as to provide the incentive for innovation ). Currently this balance does not exist. And the powerful RIAA and MPAA lobyists have a very extreme view on what role copyrights ought to play in our culture, and by consequence (this is scary) who is ALLOWED to create and distribute content, and who isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
But "closed source" encyclopedia's define truth because [insert long ass description of QA, validation and verifaction procedures] and the "open source" wikipedia is inherently unreliable overall because "you don't know who wrote the article, or even if it's true or not".
OR, the commercial interests in publishing "academic materials" have a lot vested in their business model and are spreading that FUD - because they can't compete in the digital age of information sharing.
Bummer for the horse-and-buggy.
While the ideas that made firefox awesome are not ground breaking (best trait was it's faithful support of standards) or even patentable (plenty of prior art for plugin-install-wizards, tabbed browsing, popup blocking, search toolbars, etc), the source code to firefox is protected under a bunch of different licenses, including the GNU GPL and LGPL. So Microsoft *might* be able to use it, but then they would have to pay Mozilla Foundation for it (LGPL I believe) and if they made any changes, they'd have to publish their work back to the community - which would violate the tenets of the "closed source is more secure" assault model they are employing against linux et al.
/. beeeatches?
Re: the media - they recieved Firefox extremely well, what makes you think the UNbribed authors (in the know) won't be married to their Firefox by then, and be just as skeptical of IE's utility as an FF alternative as the
And as far as a (real) developer's standpoint, two things matter:
1)standards support
2)platform support
Call me when I can write a webapp using js/css/html/dhtml and it renders the same across windows and *nix under MSIE. See that catch? Yea, FF fills that niche quite nicely, IE is relegated to being monopoly fodder.
Peace and browser grease.
--jim
Explain to them that the entire world is run by computers, and by doing things in the computer, you can affect the "real world". Then hack the school lunch network while they watch and transfer everybodies lunch money into your kids account. "And now you all have to ask Tommy for lunch, because Tommy knows computers, and you don't!" Not a direct endorsement for software design, but it'll get them to see nerds in a whole new way. Oh, then teach your kid how to fight.
When will the horror end?
It was due to end next year, but then congress passed Sonny Bono's lesser known HTEA.
Is it really like breaking into BEST BUY and stealing CDs' and movies ?
Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ talks about this issue, and does a pretty good job of arguing that the theft of "tangible property" like a music CD, and the theft of (or violation of) "copyright property" are not exactly the same crime:
When you walk into Camelot Music, and take the latest Snoop Dog CD off the shelf, then Camelot Music has one less CD to sell. Camelot then will have to consider the loss of 15 bucks or whatever it is, because they can't replace that CD for free.
This isn't the case when you download an "unpermissioned" copy of the same work. The way digital technology works, copies are perfect and infinitely low in cost. The value assigned to the copy (of the copyright protected content) is determined by the author, or publishing company - because the physical, or "real" world attributes no value to the copy since it is so easy to reproduce... infinitely.
There is the view that, because you downloaded the content for free illegally, then the money you WOULD have paid is what was lost in profit. Well, that begs the question: Is it absolute that the content you acquired for free would be content that you would have paid for had it not been available for free. RIAA rejects that argument, saying "If you want it at all, then the law says you pay, it doesn't matter if you wouldn't have it if it weren't available for free... that's irrelevant." That's a redirection though - the question wasn't "does it violate copyright law", yes it does. The question was "is it the same as the theft of tangibles".
The paradox of copyrighted content having no actual value and instead only the artificial author-determined law-enforced cost is a recent development. It comes with the digital territory. Thank about it: Books - the original copyrighted material, had to be printed and published (which cost money) and on ACTUAL paper (which kills trees AND costs money) - so this is really the first time in history that copyrights have been so trivial to violate. The trivialness is what makes it's tremendous penalization so absurd. Think about this:
A doctor can cut off your left leg - when you really had a problem with your right leg. Penalty for malpractice? $250,000. max. And that act of butchery requires the negligence of a highly trained professional and (probably) a team of highly qualified peeers. Tons of prep go into a surgery like that, and measures are taken to, in theory, ENSURE that you the patient know WHAT is going to be lopped off.
Compare that to the mere act of a teenager (with probaby little to no knowledge of what a copyright is - thanks public school!) downloading all those PHAT TUNES marketed to them nonstop... and they get it for free, and burn it to CD to listen to with their friends. That teen lands their family smack dab in the middle of a multi million dollar law suit.
Someones earlier post mentioned that law is supposed to promote the general welfare. Is it not blindingly obvious that, in Mr. Lessig's terms, the law has been "queered" to benefit the uber rich?
There ought to be a balance between the flow of content into the public domain (so that culture may be promoted and built upon) and the regulation of content ( rights gauranteed to the author for a sufficient amount of time so as to provide the incentive for innovation ). Currently this balance does not exist. And the powerful RIAA and MPAA lobyists have a very extreme view on what role copyrights ought to play in our culture, and by consequence (this is scary) who is ALLOWED to create and distribute content, and who isn't.
Hint: all your base are belong to them.
Now that the Debate is over, chat with Bush directly using AIM. he is online using the AIM handle:
DickBush4More
I can't wait to ask him about Iraq and get a coherrent response!