I don't see how this will change anything; copyright holders still have to pay lawyers to go after infringing sites/servers so there is still a bottleneck. This is kind of like using video surveillance in the ol' whack-a-mole game. You may see more moles, but it doesn't mean you can whack them faster.
That an atom really isn't mostly empty space, but that 'space' is full of the wave functions of the electrons in 'orbit' of the nucleus?
Yes and no. I am too lazy to go look it up in my quantum textbook (it's been more than a decade since I graduated) but I remember being surprised to find that, when you actually integrate the wave function, you still come out with a high probability of a particle being localized to a fairly small area in space. That is, in principle the wave function extends through the entire universe but most of its moment is within an angstrom or two (waving my hands here, too lazy to re-read-up on the math) of where a classical "orbiting marble" model of the atom says it would be.
The basic premise of the Overthruster seems perfectly reasonable if we could just find a way to do this. How could we shorten the distance that virtual photons travel within the atom? Since virtual photons have no mass, they are able to travel the full distance between electrons and protons. What would happen if the virtual photons were given mass? If virtual photons had mass, they would be restricted to a very small region around the elementary particles that make up the atoms.
Fair enough, but what would be the implications for the object that gets its virtual photons recombobulated this way?
First thing that comes to mind is that all matter, not just Banzai's rocket car, could move through the target (the mountain in this case). So, the surrounding air would rush into the newly created "empty space" that coincides with the mountain. This would cause a tremendous thunderclap and lots of turbulence. Since the molecules inside the mountain are no longer really solid, they'd get displaced by the inrushing air and spewed all over the place.
Inside an atmosphere, the Oscillation Overthruster would basically be a disintegrator ray.
Why does the Slashdot community, one of the largest Free / Open Source communities on the Net, care when a new proprietary version of some Windows-only software comes out? Find another place to post this nonsense.
Out of interest I was reading a book of samurai philosophy called "Hagakure" and I found a good amount of applicable advice in it. I forget the exact quote but the essence of one passage that really hit home is this: as a samurai, your honor depends on loyalty to your lord. But you have to realize, if your lord is a dishonorable person, there is no way for you to gain honor by serving him and you are better off cutting your losses. Turns out that applied perfectly to my psycho boss. I tried to work with her and all I got was fired. Should have quit when I had the chance.
When the U.S. gained science and engineering "leadership" in the 20th century, what exactly did that get us? Some national prestige, but I do not think our standard of living is much better than that technological has-been, the United Kingdom. In the 19th Century, I would say the U.K. far outshone all the intellectual output of the United States, and yet their sky did not fall when they lost the title of "#1 innovator." So I am not sure what exactly America will lose when China takes the title away from us.
For those who jump to the conclusion that this guy is panning the concept of Open Source - it doesn't appear that he is. All he seems to be saying is that his business doesn't just distribute and support open source, it customizes it to fill clients' needs.
The "nobody works for free" comments were in the context of tailoring a product to add the features the customer wants - essentially his business seems to be to charge money to companies who want that done, by developing custom software built on an open-source foundation.
Yes, he does sound a little full of himself, but he's the founder of a start-up. What would you expect? Please just read and understand the interview before you start burning this guy in effigy.
Actually I find I can read legal documents pretty well (most recently, real estate contracts when I bought & sold a house). It just takes a whole lot of time to parse those 300-word sentences. I'm not saying I could write a good contract, but I can sure read one. Someone who just shrugs and says "only a lawyer can understand this" seems to be asking to be victimized.
We have to read lots of "technical mumbo jumbo" in our daily lives. Insurance policies. Investment prospecti and annual reports. Workplace policies (and God forbid safety rules if you work in a factory). And, I think, computer security alerts. We have a complex society. Deal with it.
Recent IP law allows copyright on aggregations of data even if the data itself is public domain. So if Google were to digitally archive a bunch of public domain books (copyright expired on each book) then the searchable database could still be copyrighted and owned by Google.
In order to outsource the digitization of the collection to a private company, the LOC would have to license its own collection back from that company!
I think the real world is going to require a balance between idealism and pragmatism. It's the tightrope that gives so many people ulcers or makes them take up drinking.
I think your corporate friend is right up to a point. If his company goes out of business it is not going to be able to help anyone. It can go out of business for any number of reasons, including the reason that all its investors dump the stock because they see better profitability elsewhere.
I think you have a point that if they really want to share knowledge and help people then they wouldn't hoard intellectual "property." And for them to not do it falls somewhere between hypocrisy and denial.
It seems to me this is another case of "the tragedy of commons." If one actor does the right thing, he'll suffer for it - sharing knowledge will cost the company some competitiveness. So no one does the right thing, and everyone suffers. The same principle explains why environmental laws are so hard to pass, or why there is no meaningful privacy protection in the United States.
I think the solution to problems like this have to come from societies, not individuals. In other words, change society so sharing knowledge will not hurt this company with respect to its competitors. In this case, it means reform of IP laws so there is less profit motive to hoard useful knowledge. Really what is stopping this company from doing the right thing is the legal environment where IP is seen to have high competitive value.
I work in the defense industry. It has the rare combination of open positions and job security.
Various defense contractors have a big need for people who are good programmers and can understand the math and physics behind complex systems like radar and missile guidance. A master's degree in applied math, electrical engineering, or physics should do the trick.
If you don't mind working for Uncle Sam, are a U.S. citizen, and can get a security clearance (no criminal record, can pass a drug test, decent credit rating), then you too can get a good starting salary, job security, and a chance to work in a room with no windows outside Washington, DC.
One area that DOJ regulators will be looking at, in particular, is a control panel in Longhorn that facilitates use of a browser and media player other than the Microsoft versions that will be pre-built into the system.
Great. We have government "experts" who think the choice of media player really important and they aren't even looking at the whole Trusted Computing initiative and the monopolistic implications thereof.
That being said I hope they enforce their licensing pirates are slowing the uptake of Linux, it hurts everyone.
Excellent point about how a registry hack could turn the license validation into a weapon to block users updating their (licensed) boxes.
However, I don't really agree that "pirates" are slowing the uptake of Linux. It would seem to me that the choice between Linux and an unlicensed copy of Windows is a choice between two no-cost alternatives. Those who choose unlicensed Windows are choosing an insecure, unstable system for some reason. I suspect they do so because it's what everyone else has and because they (mistakenly, IMHO) think it's easier to use. That is, they must believe Windows has some value because they choose to use it, and so if backed into a corner, they might be at least as likely to pay for the convenience of Windows as to reverse their choice of OS.
There are plenty of other people to vote for, but they dont have the advertising budget of the majors.
Good point, but if they're not on the ballot, they're kind of hard to vote for. Sure there are plenty of choices for President, but at the state legislature level (remember this is a stupid state bill we're talking about) there are rarely so many to choose from. In fact, on my state ballot the legislator who was up for re-election was running unopposed.
IANAL, but I doubt the bill will be viable. It sounds like it has a major effect on interstate commerce, which is an area of Federal jurisdiction. Also, copyright is enforced at the Federal level. To me, this looks like political posturing.
None the less, I am greatly bothered that someone jerk California of all places is trying to outlaw software development.
So what you seem to be saying is there is not even a clear Supreme Court ruling in favor of software patents. That's even worse than I thought - talk about lack of proper procedure and public debate!
At least some members of the EU Parliament seem to want to see the patent initiative discussed under proper procedures, in the light of day and maybe even subject to public debate. Contrast with us poor bastards in the U.S., where software patents just kind of started happeneing without formal legislative process (thank you,
Supreme Court).
Slashdot Mirror
The gov't can read my e-mail all they want. At least, they can try to. http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
I don't see how this will change anything; copyright holders still have to pay lawyers to go after infringing sites/servers so there is still a bottleneck. This is kind of like using video surveillance in the ol' whack-a-mole game. You may see more moles, but it doesn't mean you can whack them faster.
Fair enough, but what would be the implications for the object that gets its virtual photons recombobulated this way?
First thing that comes to mind is that all matter, not just Banzai's rocket car, could move through the target (the mountain in this case). So, the surrounding air would rush into the newly created "empty space" that coincides with the mountain. This would cause a tremendous thunderclap and lots of turbulence. Since the molecules inside the mountain are no longer really solid, they'd get displaced by the inrushing air and spewed all over the place.
Inside an atmosphere, the Oscillation Overthruster would basically be a disintegrator ray.
Why does the Slashdot community, one of the largest Free / Open Source communities on the Net, care when a new proprietary version of some Windows-only software comes out? Find another place to post this nonsense.
Out of interest I was reading a book of samurai philosophy called "Hagakure" and I found a good amount of applicable advice in it. I forget the exact quote but the essence of one passage that really hit home is this: as a samurai, your honor depends on loyalty to your lord. But you have to realize, if your lord is a dishonorable person, there is no way for you to gain honor by serving him and you are better off cutting your losses. Turns out that applied perfectly to my psycho boss. I tried to work with her and all I got was fired. Should have quit when I had the chance.
When the U.S. gained science and engineering "leadership" in the 20th century, what exactly did that get us? Some national prestige, but I do not think our standard of living is much better than that technological has-been, the United Kingdom. In the 19th Century, I would say the U.K. far outshone all the intellectual output of the United States, and yet their sky did not fall when they lost the title of "#1 innovator." So I am not sure what exactly America will lose when China takes the title away from us.
For those who jump to the conclusion that this guy is panning the concept of Open Source - it doesn't appear that he is. All he seems to be saying is that his business doesn't just distribute and support open source, it customizes it to fill clients' needs.
The "nobody works for free" comments were in the context of tailoring a product to add the features the customer wants - essentially his business seems to be to charge money to companies who want that done, by developing custom software built on an open-source foundation.
Yes, he does sound a little full of himself, but he's the founder of a start-up. What would you expect? Please just read and understand the interview before you start burning this guy in effigy.
Because it's copyright infrigement, it is not illegal to download copyrighted material. It's illegal to upload it.
It could be that a reason people don't see downloading material as "theft," is that the law doesn't see it that way either.
Actually I find I can read legal documents pretty well (most recently, real estate contracts when I bought & sold a house). It just takes a whole lot of time to parse those 300-word sentences. I'm not saying I could write a good contract, but I can sure read one. Someone who just shrugs and says "only a lawyer can understand this" seems to be asking to be victimized.
We have to read lots of "technical mumbo jumbo" in our daily lives. Insurance policies. Investment prospecti and annual reports. Workplace policies (and God forbid safety rules if you work in a factory). And, I think, computer security alerts. We have a complex society. Deal with it.
Recent IP law allows copyright on aggregations of data even if the data itself is public domain. So if Google were to digitally archive a bunch of public domain books (copyright expired on each book) then the searchable database could still be copyrighted and owned by Google.
In order to outsource the digitization of the collection to a private company, the LOC would have to license its own collection back from that company!
I think the real world is going to require a balance between idealism and pragmatism. It's the tightrope that gives so many people ulcers or makes them take up drinking.
I think your corporate friend is right up to a point. If his company goes out of business it is not going to be able to help anyone. It can go out of business for any number of reasons, including the reason that all its investors dump the stock because they see better profitability elsewhere.
I think you have a point that if they really want to share knowledge and help people then they wouldn't hoard intellectual "property." And for them to not do it falls somewhere between hypocrisy and denial.
It seems to me this is another case of "the tragedy of commons." If one actor does the right thing, he'll suffer for it - sharing knowledge will cost the company some competitiveness. So no one does the right thing, and everyone suffers. The same principle explains why environmental laws are so hard to pass, or why there is no meaningful privacy protection in the United States.
I think the solution to problems like this have to come from societies, not individuals. In other words, change society so sharing knowledge will not hurt this company with respect to its competitors. In this case, it means reform of IP laws so there is less profit motive to hoard useful knowledge. Really what is stopping this company from doing the right thing is the legal environment where IP is seen to have high competitive value.
I work in the defense industry. It has the rare combination of open positions and job security.
Various defense contractors have a big need for people who are good programmers and can understand the math and physics behind complex systems like radar and missile guidance. A master's degree in applied math, electrical engineering, or physics should do the trick.
If you don't mind working for Uncle Sam, are a U.S. citizen, and can get a security clearance (no criminal record, can pass a drug test, decent credit rating), then you too can get a good starting salary, job security, and a chance to work in a room with no windows outside Washington, DC.
to get good scripts? I've got my checkbook right here.
is that they've discovered how to get funding for this bullshit. Some people will do anything to make a buck.
One area that DOJ regulators will be looking at, in particular, is a control panel in Longhorn that facilitates use of a browser and media player other than the Microsoft versions that will be pre-built into the system.
Great. We have government "experts" who think the choice of media player really important and they aren't even looking at the whole Trusted Computing initiative and the monopolistic implications thereof.
That being said I hope they enforce their licensing pirates are slowing the uptake of Linux, it hurts everyone.
Excellent point about how a registry hack could turn the license validation into a weapon to block users updating their (licensed) boxes.
However, I don't really agree that "pirates" are slowing the uptake of Linux. It would seem to me that the choice between Linux and an unlicensed copy of Windows is a choice between two no-cost alternatives. Those who choose unlicensed Windows are choosing an insecure, unstable system for some reason. I suspect they do so because it's what everyone else has and because they (mistakenly, IMHO) think it's easier to use. That is, they must believe Windows has some value because they choose to use it, and so if backed into a corner, they might be at least as likely to pay for the convenience of Windows as to reverse their choice of OS.
Even unlicensed users can have vendor lock-in.
The poor sots like me who got laid off, and managed to find a new job but at a 10% pay cut?
We need a businessman to run this company...
So we can give him a $150 mil golden parachute when he blames all his failures on the board (Congress) and gets voted out? No thanks.
There are plenty of other people to vote for, but they dont have the advertising budget of the majors.
Good point, but if they're not on the ballot, they're kind of hard to vote for. Sure there are plenty of choices for President, but at the state legislature level (remember this is a stupid state bill we're talking about) there are rarely so many to choose from. In fact, on my state ballot the legislator who was up for re-election was running unopposed.
Have you ever tried to run for office while holding down a full-time job and taking night classes?
Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates who's agenda starts and stops with business interests.
They have. Trouble is, there is no one else to vote for. That's why voter turnout is so low.
IANAL, but I doubt the bill will be viable. It sounds like it has a major effect on interstate commerce, which is an area of Federal jurisdiction. Also, copyright is enforced at the Federal level. To me, this looks like political posturing.
None the less, I am greatly bothered that someone jerk California of all places is trying to outlaw software development.
So what you seem to be saying is there is not even a clear Supreme Court ruling in favor of software patents. That's even worse than I thought - talk about lack of proper procedure and public debate!
At least some members of the EU Parliament seem to want to see the patent initiative discussed under proper procedures, in the light of day and maybe even subject to public debate. Contrast with us poor bastards in the U.S., where software patents just kind of started happeneing without formal legislative process (thank you, Supreme Court).