Well, they have been developing newer stuff for years, including single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicles (such as, if I remember correctly, the X-33?). Oh, and I think they've got aerospike engines, too!
Reminds me of how kangaroos came to be called 'kangaroos'.
As I heard it told, an explorer/convict/whatever saw a strange animal bouncing by. He asked an Aborigine, who he happened to be with, what that animal was called.
"Kangaroo," said the Aborigine. Or, to translate it into English: "I dunno."
There is, perhaps, a bit of irony in Darl McBride's choice of gold-rush metaphor. He seems obsessed with IP, and even states that "The new gold is IP". What he doesn't seem to understand is the old saying about how the only people who get rich in a gold rush are the ones selling the pick-axes and shovels to the dollar-sign-eyed prospectors.
It's clear from The SCO Group's lawsuits and 'SCOsource' licensing efforts that they are not in the mining equipment business in their gold rush. Indeed, they have invested heavily in trying to mine IBM, and others, through the courts and by their threats of litigation. How appropriate it is that they are based in the Rocky Mountains!
You are right. As with software patents, they're trying to treat this 'new' stuff as if it's essentially the same as 'old' stuff, when it's not. And, because this 'new' digital stuff is not the same, they're having to work against the very nature of this digital stuff - and that means they've got that digital nature working against them!
Far better it is to seek a way to work with the nature of the stuff. That's the essential strength of Open Source. (The openness, peer-reviewability of code, etc, all follows easily and readily from the basic nature of bits.) And, when you're working with the nature of the stuff, you've got the nature of the stuff working with you!
This is the real digital revolution. So often, those who spout that phrase, 'digital revolution', just don't understand it, and do not realise the true magnitude of it. Far from having arrived, the digital revolution hasn't even begun to reach it's end. If anything, we are only now beginning to witness the end of the beginning. And it is a revolution that has been decades in the brewing.
This slight quaking of the music industry is just an example of the tremors preceeding the full revolution. Tensions are growing, and these precursory tremors are not enough to relieve the growing pressure. Instead, they are steps towards the main event.
The changes that the true ground-breakers are seeking to introduce will prove to be of orders of magnitude greater than those imagined - even feared - by the music industry and the like. Even the biggest changes being contemplated by the current music industry chiefs are small compared to the changes they will have to face and accept. In comparison, things like online music retailing will seem so small and pathetic.
As with Open Source, musicians will find themselves liberated from the current, distrusted system, and they will turn their world upside-down. Instead of going on promotional tours to boost record sales, the recordings will become promotional and live performances will be the real product.
In these earthquakes, in the music industry and beyond, artificial scarcity gives way to natural scarcity. You can copy a digital recording many, many times, and distribute those copies cheaply and easily. But there are only so many concerts you can give, and only so many people who can fit in the venues to hear and see you.
People want to enjoy the benefits of using computers, but don't want to be responsible for what they do with them.
A computer, after all, is a tool that we use. What it does it does on our behalf. It only does what we tell it to.
If I choose to buy a computer with spyware, or whatever, on it, I am choosing to buy a computer with that software on it. If I choose to install a piece of software, I am choosing to install that piece of software. If I choose to make these choices without finding out what these pieces of software actually do, I am making that choice, and am responsible for the consequences.
But hang on. One of the wonderful things about computers, about software, is that we don't need to read the software in order to use it. The computers do that on our behalf. One of the most wonderful things about software is how we can use it without finding out every single thing that it does.
On the one hand, I am responsible for what I have my computer do, I am responsible for what I allow my computer to do. But on the other, one of the greatest benefits - if not the greatest benefit - of software is that I don't need to find out everything about what it actually does in order to use it.
Open Source is itself a solution to this problem. It's really just peer review. It's open, it's transparent, it's democratic, and it works. By choosing open-source software, and by choosing the right open-source software, I am choosing software that has been, and continues to be, thoroughly and publicly peer-reviewed. If I'm not sufficiently satisfied, I can still examine the source code myself, or hire someone to examine it for me. Wonderful!
The point of this is that it is possible to reconcile taking responsibility for software choices with the benefit of being able to use software without having to read all the way through it. This means that there is no excuse for using software, or allowing computers to do 'unintended' things, without taking responsibility for that.
But many users now seem so steeped in a culture of 'blame the computer', 'blame the software providers', and so on, that re-education is what's really required. Of course, it's more than understandable that so many computer users have ended up with this 'I'm not responsible!' attitude - how can they be when the only software available is effectively secret? How can users be responsible for what the software does when they can only go by what the providers of that software tell them?
If I have a choice between a piece of open-source software, and a similar piece of closed-source software, and I choose the closed-source software, I am choosing to use that software even if it does other stuff that I don't even know about. I would have to take responsibility for that, as I could have chosen the open-source, peer-reviewed software instead.
But if there isn't an open-source option available - what then? How are users supposed to know whether or not a piece of software they need isn't going to do something they'd never agree to? Users need to demand open, independently-verifiable software. But for that to happen, users first need to be educated.
The new law in the US is the wrong solution to an unnecessary problem. It further reinforces the idea that we are not responsible for what our computers do on our behalves. It panders to those who want to enjoy their rights, but don't want to be responsible for the consequences of how they exercise those rights. It treats computer users like children who are too young to take responsibility for their own choices.
We need to work to liberate computer users from the shackles of misconception.
This sort of targetting of software users (the users in this case being Wi-Fi hotspot providers) is clearly unjust. It is one of the worst things about software patents.
A computer user, who needs a solution to a problem, chooses to use a particular solution that's published, in software-form, by someone else. Isn't that one of the most basic things about software? Isn't that one of the most wonderful things about computers? Surely!
But then, supposedly in the interests of encouraging and supporting innovation, we have to consider the issue of patents. Might that user, in using that piece of software, be infringing some other person's patent? Yes, they might. And who would be liable? The user, or the provider of the software?
It should not and must not be the provider of the software, as that would mean that the patent would itself be an infringement of the software provider's right to freedom of expression. (After all, it is utterly fundamental to what software is that software is a form of expression.)
But that leaves the user being the supposed infringer. Does that make sense? Is that reasonable? Is that fair? Is that just? Surely not!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh I see!
Well, they have been developing newer stuff for years, including single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) vehicles (such as, if I remember correctly, the X-33?). Oh, and I think they've got aerospike engines, too!
Well, after a few years, technology tends to be more than just a few years old. (Yes, it is now time to slap yourself on the forehead.)
Aren't Saturn Vs just magnificent? They're magnificent! I reckon it's time for them to make a come-back. Please?
Reminds me of how kangaroos came to be called 'kangaroos'.
As I heard it told, an explorer/convict/whatever saw a strange animal bouncing by. He asked an Aborigine, who he happened to be with, what that animal was called.
"Kangaroo," said the Aborigine. Or, to translate it into English: "I dunno."
So, either 94-year-olds today have a surprisingly youthful future to look forward to, or today's 4-year-olds are going to age awfully fast!
There is, perhaps, a bit of irony in Darl McBride's choice of gold-rush metaphor. He seems obsessed with IP, and even states that "The new gold is IP". What he doesn't seem to understand is the old saying about how the only people who get rich in a gold rush are the ones selling the pick-axes and shovels to the dollar-sign-eyed prospectors.
It's clear from The SCO Group's lawsuits and 'SCOsource' licensing efforts that they are not in the mining equipment business in their gold rush. Indeed, they have invested heavily in trying to mine IBM, and others, through the courts and by their threats of litigation. How appropriate it is that they are based in the Rocky Mountains!
You are right. As with software patents, they're trying to treat this 'new' stuff as if it's essentially the same as 'old' stuff, when it's not. And, because this 'new' digital stuff is not the same, they're having to work against the very nature of this digital stuff - and that means they've got that digital nature working against them!
Far better it is to seek a way to work with the nature of the stuff. That's the essential strength of Open Source. (The openness, peer-reviewability of code, etc, all follows easily and readily from the basic nature of bits.) And, when you're working with the nature of the stuff, you've got the nature of the stuff working with you!
This is the real digital revolution. So often, those who spout that phrase, 'digital revolution', just don't understand it, and do not realise the true magnitude of it. Far from having arrived, the digital revolution hasn't even begun to reach it's end. If anything, we are only now beginning to witness the end of the beginning. And it is a revolution that has been decades in the brewing.
This slight quaking of the music industry is just an example of the tremors preceeding the full revolution. Tensions are growing, and these precursory tremors are not enough to relieve the growing pressure. Instead, they are steps towards the main event.
The changes that the true ground-breakers are seeking to introduce will prove to be of orders of magnitude greater than those imagined - even feared - by the music industry and the like. Even the biggest changes being contemplated by the current music industry chiefs are small compared to the changes they will have to face and accept. In comparison, things like online music retailing will seem so small and pathetic.
As with Open Source, musicians will find themselves liberated from the current, distrusted system, and they will turn their world upside-down. Instead of going on promotional tours to boost record sales, the recordings will become promotional and live performances will be the real product.
In these earthquakes, in the music industry and beyond, artificial scarcity gives way to natural scarcity. You can copy a digital recording many, many times, and distribute those copies cheaply and easily. But there are only so many concerts you can give, and only so many people who can fit in the venues to hear and see you.
Up the revolution!
People want to enjoy the benefits of using computers, but don't want to be responsible for what they do with them.
A computer, after all, is a tool that we use. What it does it does on our behalf. It only does what we tell it to.
If I choose to buy a computer with spyware, or whatever, on it, I am choosing to buy a computer with that software on it. If I choose to install a piece of software, I am choosing to install that piece of software. If I choose to make these choices without finding out what these pieces of software actually do, I am making that choice, and am responsible for the consequences.
But hang on. One of the wonderful things about computers, about software, is that we don't need to read the software in order to use it. The computers do that on our behalf. One of the most wonderful things about software is how we can use it without finding out every single thing that it does.
On the one hand, I am responsible for what I have my computer do, I am responsible for what I allow my computer to do. But on the other, one of the greatest benefits - if not the greatest benefit - of software is that I don't need to find out everything about what it actually does in order to use it.
Open Source is itself a solution to this problem. It's really just peer review. It's open, it's transparent, it's democratic, and it works. By choosing open-source software, and by choosing the right open-source software, I am choosing software that has been, and continues to be, thoroughly and publicly peer-reviewed. If I'm not sufficiently satisfied, I can still examine the source code myself, or hire someone to examine it for me. Wonderful!
The point of this is that it is possible to reconcile taking responsibility for software choices with the benefit of being able to use software without having to read all the way through it. This means that there is no excuse for using software, or allowing computers to do 'unintended' things, without taking responsibility for that.
But many users now seem so steeped in a culture of 'blame the computer', 'blame the software providers', and so on, that re-education is what's really required. Of course, it's more than understandable that so many computer users have ended up with this 'I'm not responsible!' attitude - how can they be when the only software available is effectively secret? How can users be responsible for what the software does when they can only go by what the providers of that software tell them?
If I have a choice between a piece of open-source software, and a similar piece of closed-source software, and I choose the closed-source software, I am choosing to use that software even if it does other stuff that I don't even know about. I would have to take responsibility for that, as I could have chosen the open-source, peer-reviewed software instead.
But if there isn't an open-source option available - what then? How are users supposed to know whether or not a piece of software they need isn't going to do something they'd never agree to? Users need to demand open, independently-verifiable software. But for that to happen, users first need to be educated.
The new law in the US is the wrong solution to an unnecessary problem. It further reinforces the idea that we are not responsible for what our computers do on our behalves. It panders to those who want to enjoy their rights, but don't want to be responsible for the consequences of how they exercise those rights. It treats computer users like children who are too young to take responsibility for their own choices.
We need to work to liberate computer users from the shackles of misconception.
This sort of targetting of software users (the users in this case being Wi-Fi hotspot providers) is clearly unjust. It is one of the worst things about software patents.
A computer user, who needs a solution to a problem, chooses to use a particular solution that's published, in software-form, by someone else. Isn't that one of the most basic things about software? Isn't that one of the most wonderful things about computers? Surely!
But then, supposedly in the interests of encouraging and supporting innovation, we have to consider the issue of patents. Might that user, in using that piece of software, be infringing some other person's patent? Yes, they might. And who would be liable? The user, or the provider of the software?
It should not and must not be the provider of the software, as that would mean that the patent would itself be an infringement of the software provider's right to freedom of expression. (After all, it is utterly fundamental to what software is that software is a form of expression.)
But that leaves the user being the supposed infringer. Does that make sense? Is that reasonable? Is that fair? Is that just? Surely not!