Once we achieve a critical mass greater than their lawyers can handle, they will no longer have the ability to force this legislation onto us.
I wish I could agree, but I don't. You could apply that argument to anything that (rightly or wrongly) defines a crime. The threat of possible consequences might prevent this critical mass from appearing. I think that's why these cretins are pushing this agenda - they want to get in front of what will otherwise be an unstoppable juggernaut.
And come on now, the law is the law! That's why nobody ever commits fellatio in Missouri.
This Lessig fellow could really screw up my latest get rich scheme. I'm going to walk around with a tape recorder, and copyright everything that I say! Whoo hoo I'm gonna abuse so many colloquial expressions ya'll won't even be able to post to slashdot without paying me!
via correct choices of virtual network topology, you can ensure that the physical capacity is being used productively.
Would you say that the performance of the system would depend on your choice of which virtual nodes are connected to which other virtual nodes? Or can you say that the performance of a virtual hypercube topology can be considered completely independantly of the underlying physical network?
The dominant constraint for hardware implementations of high-dimensional networks is the cost of the physical wires on the interconnect backplane. Since the hypernets discussed here would be implemented in software, no such constraints would prevent reaching the desired level of scalability.
I really don't see how you can sweep the actual physical infrastrucure under the rug like this. Eventually, virtual hypercubes turn into real packets on a real network. A network that is subject to the very same topological limitations this article discusses. Any wonder that the Tandem Himalaya architecture he mentions was implemented in hardware, rather than as a "virtual" topology implemented on top of a traditional TCP/IP network?
When it comes to complicated mathematics like this, though, intuition has often led me astray...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the point was that there are lots of examples of proprietary/closed standards. Unfortunately standards do not have to be free/open to be successful.
I'm not responding to disagree with you, just to add my own little rant...
We have laws. Laws are laws and you're not supposed to break them. But we have laws for a purpose. What is that purpose? Well, if you asked me, I'd probably respond with some vague handwaving generality like "to make the world a better place".
Now when you start to have a conversation like this, it tends to veer off into dialectic diatribes about what the law "should" be. As opposed to what it is now. But if you head in that direction, you're sticking your neck out. You're questioning the law. The law which can't be broken. Are you some kind of demented criminal?!
When it comes to issues of copyright and licensing, though, I think that's exactly the conversation that is most important. There are a lot of built-in assumptions about the utility of copyrights and licenses. We hold these truths to be self-evident (we have laws for christ's sake!). We compose paeons to these sacred cows.
I think the Feds may be our best hope. Call me chicken little, but tell me, what do you get when you combine: (1) a digital rights management OS, (2) encrypted network communications, (3) proprietary code. If you can, throw in SSSCA for good measure.
This is what you get: you have no idea what you get. What's going over that wire? Who knows? What's your OS doing in its secret private places. Giving you a wank job, for all you know.
Any government that would agree to run, or should I say "be run", by such systems would have to be nuts. Now maybe the US could pressure MS into allowing government auditors code access. Maybe they could get a backdoor, too. But I doubt that priviledge would extend to governments around the world.
I've heard said (I don't know this for sure) that the reason PC boxes are beige, is that some federal gov't standard mandated that color. The governent being the hugest customer around, the cost effective thing to do was to manufacture to their standards. Whether this is a true story or not, the fact remains that no organization has clout like the US federal government. It looks to me that unless the Feds want MS to give them a poke in the eye, that they might seriously like to consider alternatives.
"intellectual property" is the major costs of ANY product these days
This is your conclusion. I think. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
R&D != "Intellectual Property". Not by fiat. Now you might argue that R&D efforts should result in legal ownership rights and priviledges, but you haven't done so. You simply take this relation for granted.
I'm going to paraphrase a question I already asked, but on an expiring thread in an old article: How many people who rigorously defend proprietary software actually own and profit from proprietary software? If you code for Microsoft, you don't own jack shit. Why do you code? For money. It's work for hire, pure and simple. Code ownership has nothing to do with it. I'd like to see someone tell their boss at Microsoft that they would like to excercise their "Intellectual Property" rights. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
If proprietary software were outlawed tomorrow, does anyone really think that the demand for software would evaporate?! Bullocks. People would get paid to develop software just like they do today. Except that they would actually be able to continue building on their own (and others) work, no matter who they worked for.
It seems to me like the posers who most ardently defend the free market and "Intellectual Property" are also the most afraid of allowing a real free market to actually exist.
This morning, I submitted the following (rejected, boo hoo) story:
According to The Register, Palm has put the kibosh on any form of BeOS licensing scheme, open or otherwise.
It sounds like there's a whole lot of moving and shaking going on over in Palm land, though, so separating the facts from the PR might be a bit of a chore for a while.
I just read through this whole conversation's thread, and realized you were being serious. I thought you were casting aspersions and replied in kind. My apologies.
I still support Alan's principled refusal to work for an organization that is often at cross-purposes with his own ideals. What's wrong with that?
Why does AOL/TW need to buy RH in the first place? Then can buy a box set or download the ISO's just like anyone else?
Duh. They want the developers, dodo-brain. Developers like Alan. What does Alan get along with his new paycheck? He gets a new boss. A new boss with new ideas. Apparently the ideas RH is coming up with on its own aren't good enough.
You'd have to ask Alan, but judging his past communiques, I'd guess that he might have a problem with that. And with people who leave integrity at the door so they can get a bigger paycheck.
One good thing that will come of this, no matter what happens, is that GNU/Linux will attain greater visibility. "Hmm, if AOL/TW is interested, maybe I should be looking into this..."
Who could afford to sue them back into compliance with the GPL?
I'm not as concerned about them not complying with the GPL, as I am about how they would license software who's copyrights are now owned by Red Hat. I really don't know what portion of a standard Linux distribution is copyrighted by Red Hat, but I'd imagine there are several significant components. Red Hat Package Manager comes to mind.
Existing code would still be subject to GPL provisions. But the copyright owner can move in any future direction they like. I haven't noticed anything about AOL/TW's past behaviour to inspire confidence that they wouldn't seek advantage any way they could get it. Imagine an AOL subscriber's RPM-based system updater, for example. You certainly wouldn't want your competitors to get their hands on such an intellectual asset now, would you?
The government will love it because they get to collect taxes. This is a Orwellian Utopia. Of course Michael Eisner loves it. The only person who gets screwed is the consumer.
I have to disagree that the only person who gets screwed is the consumer. I'd also throw in the government (who is also a consumer, but I'm quibbling). Imagine this: Federal legislation mandating security measures be built into hardware. On top of that, run a digital rights management operating system - provided by MS, of course, since they own the patent. Combine with the encrypted data stream you mention.
Now what have you got? You have a computer system over which you have literally lost control. There is no possible way that you could know everything this system is doing. Of course this is bad for the consumer. But remember, the government is also a consumer. A very large consumer. A consumer who's participation is required in order to realize this dystopian vision.
And that is where I see a ray of hope. If our government can be made to realize that supporting such efforts could, quite literally, usurp their control over the systems used to manage our country, I would hope they would take pause. And after a pause, I'd hope they'd bitch slap the evil robber barons promoting these measures until they're sobbing crybabies.
The robber barons realize that this is what would happen if consumers are given choices. That's why they are asking our representives in congress to pass laws making your open hardware illegal.
...not introducing hardware copyright protection ( as well as copy protection built into OS, Software, Web Browsers and Routers ) would eventually lead to the "industry's destruction"
Two things. One, such a statement is gross hyperbole.
But two, so what?! The argument IP proponents always make is that they need more and more government protection or their industry will suffer. Well maybe it should suffer. If you build a business method on an anachronism, you will, and should, suffer. You should suffer, because this is how the economy minimizes the amount of total suffering. Which is what lawmakers should really be concerned about. The economy as a whole - not particular outdated outliers.
you need to realize that total-world-domination isn't the only measure of success.
Bingo.
And I'd add: total-world-domination isn't even desireable.
So Apple accounts for only 4.5 per cent of new personal computer sales, according to Gartner Dataquest. - Katz
And this is precisely why Apple has been so innovative of late. They must innovate to survive. If implementing an entirely new OS, designed to run on an entirely new hardware platform, isn't innovative; then what is? Perhaps increasing your stranglehold on consumers by issuing ever stricter legal edicts, agglomerating private customer data, and reducing the operating system's basic functionality - which is what passes for innovation at Microsoft. I wish all players had 4.5 percent of their market. When you're talking about a market that's worth billions of dollars, that's really not doing too badly.
Slashdot Mirror
Once we achieve a critical mass greater than their lawyers can handle, they will no longer have the ability to force this legislation onto us.
I wish I could agree, but I don't. You could apply that argument to anything that (rightly or wrongly) defines a crime. The threat of possible consequences might prevent this critical mass from appearing. I think that's why these cretins are pushing this agenda - they want to get in front of what will otherwise be an unstoppable juggernaut.
And come on now, the law is the law! That's why nobody ever commits fellatio in Missouri.
This Lessig fellow could really screw up my latest get rich scheme. I'm going to walk around with a tape recorder, and copyright everything that I say! Whoo hoo I'm gonna abuse so many colloquial expressions ya'll won't even be able to post to slashdot without paying me!
via correct choices of virtual network topology, you can ensure that the physical capacity is being used productively.
Would you say that the performance of the system would depend on your choice of which virtual nodes are connected to which other virtual nodes? Or can you say that the performance of a virtual hypercube topology can be considered completely independantly of the underlying physical network?
Exactly.
Moreover, what are we to make of this?
The dominant constraint for hardware implementations of high-dimensional networks is the cost of the physical wires on the interconnect backplane. Since the hypernets discussed here would be implemented in software, no such constraints would prevent reaching the desired level of scalability.
I really don't see how you can sweep the actual physical infrastrucure under the rug like this. Eventually, virtual hypercubes turn into real packets on a real network. A network that is subject to the very same topological limitations this article discusses. Any wonder that the Tandem Himalaya architecture he mentions was implemented in hardware, rather than as a "virtual" topology implemented on top of a traditional TCP/IP network?
When it comes to complicated mathematics like this, though, intuition has often led me astray...
So what does all this mean?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this mean that the source code for Windows would become part of the public record?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the point was that there are lots of examples of proprietary/closed standards. Unfortunately standards do not have to be free/open to be successful.
I'm not responding to disagree with you, just to add my own little rant...
We have laws. Laws are laws and you're not supposed to break them. But we have laws for a purpose. What is that purpose? Well, if you asked me, I'd probably respond with some vague handwaving generality like "to make the world a better place".
Now when you start to have a conversation like this, it tends to veer off into dialectic diatribes about what the law "should" be. As opposed to what it is now. But if you head in that direction, you're sticking your neck out. You're questioning the law. The law which can't be broken. Are you some kind of demented criminal?!
When it comes to issues of copyright and licensing, though, I think that's exactly the conversation that is most important. There are a lot of built-in assumptions about the utility of copyrights and licenses. We hold these truths to be self-evident (we have laws for christ's sake!). We compose paeons to these sacred cows.
I don't.
From www.m-w.com:
: the enjoyment of the pleasures of the moment without concern for the future
That's not exactly the phrase I'd choose...
I think the Feds may be our best hope. Call me chicken little, but tell me, what do you get when you combine: (1) a digital rights management OS, (2) encrypted network communications, (3) proprietary code. If you can, throw in SSSCA for good measure.
This is what you get: you have no idea what you get. What's going over that wire? Who knows? What's your OS doing in its secret private places. Giving you a wank job, for all you know.
Any government that would agree to run, or should I say "be run", by such systems would have to be nuts. Now maybe the US could pressure MS into allowing government auditors code access. Maybe they could get a backdoor, too. But I doubt that priviledge would extend to governments around the world.
I've heard said (I don't know this for sure) that the reason PC boxes are beige, is that some federal gov't standard mandated that color. The governent being the hugest customer around, the cost effective thing to do was to manufacture to their standards. Whether this is a true story or not, the fact remains that no organization has clout like the US federal government. It looks to me that unless the Feds want MS to give them a poke in the eye, that they might seriously like to consider alternatives.
Creative makes boards for games. Not for serious audio.
I happen to prefer M-Audio, because of their broad platform support: http://www.midiman.com/products/digital.php.
Their low-end card (Audiophile 2496) is cost-competitive with Creative's high end, and would probably do you very nicely.
You'll see most pro gear moving the D/A stuff external to the computer, to reduce noise.
"intellectual property" is the major costs of ANY product these days
This is your conclusion. I think. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
R&D != "Intellectual Property". Not by fiat. Now you might argue that R&D efforts should result in legal ownership rights and priviledges, but you haven't done so. You simply take this relation for granted.
I'm going to paraphrase a question I already asked, but on an expiring thread in an old article: How many people who rigorously defend proprietary software actually own and profit from proprietary software? If you code for Microsoft, you don't own jack shit. Why do you code? For money. It's work for hire, pure and simple. Code ownership has nothing to do with it. I'd like to see someone tell their boss at Microsoft that they would like to excercise their "Intellectual Property" rights. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
If proprietary software were outlawed tomorrow, does anyone really think that the demand for software would evaporate?! Bullocks. People would get paid to develop software just like they do today. Except that they would actually be able to continue building on their own (and others) work, no matter who they worked for.
It seems to me like the posers who most ardently defend the free market and "Intellectual Property" are also the most afraid of allowing a real free market to actually exist.
The worker has never been [so] valuable as today.
Right on.
This morning, I submitted the following (rejected, boo hoo) story:
According to The Register, Palm has put the kibosh on any form of BeOS licensing scheme, open or otherwise.
It sounds like there's a whole lot of moving and shaking going on over in Palm land, though, so separating the facts from the PR might be a bit of a chore for a while.
I just read through this whole conversation's thread, and realized you were being serious. I thought you were casting aspersions and replied in kind. My apologies.
I still support Alan's principled refusal to work for an organization that is often at cross-purposes with his own ideals. What's wrong with that?
Why does AOL/TW need to buy RH in the first place? Then can buy a box set or download the ISO's just like anyone else?
Duh. They want the developers, dodo-brain. Developers like Alan. What does Alan get along with his new paycheck? He gets a new boss. A new boss with new ideas. Apparently the ideas RH is coming up with on its own aren't good enough.
You'd have to ask Alan, but judging his past communiques, I'd guess that he might have a problem with that. And with people who leave integrity at the door so they can get a bigger paycheck.
I bet he doesn't use ICQ or Winamp either.
One good thing that will come of this, no matter what happens, is that GNU/Linux will attain greater visibility. "Hmm, if AOL/TW is interested, maybe I should be looking into this..."
Who could afford to sue them back into compliance with the GPL?
I'm not as concerned about them not complying with the GPL, as I am about how they would license software who's copyrights are now owned by Red Hat. I really don't know what portion of a standard Linux distribution is copyrighted by Red Hat, but I'd imagine there are several significant components. Red Hat Package Manager comes to mind.
Existing code would still be subject to GPL provisions. But the copyright owner can move in any future direction they like. I haven't noticed anything about AOL/TW's past behaviour to inspire confidence that they wouldn't seek advantage any way they could get it. Imagine an AOL subscriber's RPM-based system updater, for example. You certainly wouldn't want your competitors to get their hands on such an intellectual asset now, would you?
If you are not Erris, then this post is probably the most blatent plagerism I have seen on slashdot.
Don't you be taking my name in vain now!
;)
;)
He he..
I'll be more careful to say "evil robber barons" from now on. I certainly not concerned about the regular Robber Rarons such as yourself.
The government will love it because they get to collect taxes. This is a Orwellian Utopia. Of course Michael Eisner loves it. The only person who gets screwed is the consumer.
I have to disagree that the only person who gets screwed is the consumer. I'd also throw in the government (who is also a consumer, but I'm quibbling). Imagine this: Federal legislation mandating security measures be built into hardware. On top of that, run a digital rights management operating system - provided by MS, of course, since they own the patent. Combine with the encrypted data stream you mention.
Now what have you got? You have a computer system over which you have literally lost control. There is no possible way that you could know everything this system is doing. Of course this is bad for the consumer. But remember, the government is also a consumer. A very large consumer. A consumer who's participation is required in order to realize this dystopian vision.
And that is where I see a ray of hope. If our government can be made to realize that supporting such efforts could, quite literally, usurp their control over the systems used to manage our country, I would hope they would take pause. And after a pause, I'd hope they'd bitch slap the evil robber barons promoting these measures until they're sobbing crybabies.
Could you imagine if Microsoft bought a stake of a major PC maker?
I can easily imagine the XBox achieving ubiquity. I'm not saying it will, but it's easy to see where MS would like to go with this.
The robber barons realize that this is what would happen if consumers are given choices. That's why they are asking our representives in congress to pass laws making your open hardware illegal.
...not introducing hardware copyright protection ( as well as copy protection built into OS, Software, Web Browsers and Routers ) would eventually lead to the "industry's destruction"
Two things. One, such a statement is gross hyperbole.
But two, so what?! The argument IP proponents always make is that they need more and more government protection or their industry will suffer. Well maybe it should suffer. If you build a business method on an anachronism, you will, and should, suffer. You should suffer, because this is how the economy minimizes the amount of total suffering. Which is what lawmakers should really be concerned about. The economy as a whole - not particular outdated outliers.
Probably not the complete solution you're looking for, but a framework with interesting possibilities.
l
http://www.gnu.org/software/maverik/maverik.htm
http://aig.cs.man.ac.uk/
If you really want to make the world a safer place, please demand that everyone wear helmets all of the time.
you need to realize that total-world-domination isn't the only measure of success.
Bingo.
And I'd add: total-world-domination isn't even desireable.
So Apple accounts for only 4.5 per cent of new personal computer sales, according to Gartner Dataquest. - Katz
And this is precisely why Apple has been so innovative of late. They must innovate to survive. If implementing an entirely new OS, designed to run on an entirely new hardware platform, isn't innovative; then what is? Perhaps increasing your stranglehold on consumers by issuing ever stricter legal edicts, agglomerating private customer data, and reducing the operating system's basic functionality - which is what passes for innovation at Microsoft. I wish all players had 4.5 percent of their market. When you're talking about a market that's worth billions of dollars, that's really not doing too badly.