Fact is, I watched the hearing in which Lessig and V. Cerf and others explained exactly what the real issue is; what the meaning of net neutrality is in this context; and the patently obvious fact that Google et. al. are not getting the free bandwidth the telcos accuse them of getting.
Stevens presided over this hearing. He knows the facts of the matter quite well. This is not a case of ignorance but of deception. Sorry, it just is.
How 'bout an over-under for the date the MPAA sues somebody who makes a wildly popular negative commentary that becomes more popular than the film? I'll also lay 3:2 they try to use copyright to enjoin the commentators.
So, so many people have an optimistic view of the "intellectual property" system -- i.e. that our representatives contemplate the costs & benefits of a copyright extension, or of a *major expansion of patent scope (to software), etc. Sorry, it rarely works that way. You want changes in law, you plunks down yr money.
Merits are not under consideration yet. This ruling is strictly on the fact that SCO did not specify what exactly they are claiming IBM did wrong. IBM has spent three years saying "What did we steal/contribute unlawfully? What code? What 'methods and concepts'?" It'll be later this year that they say "No, we didn't do that stuff."
And I agree it's sad that a co. can game the system this much for this long, without providing detail about the alleged wrongdoing. It's basically a Gitmo approach to suing.
Seeing SCO capsize, dozens (hundreds?) of competent if obsolete UNIX hackers thrown out of work, with yummy parachutes for all the top-level blokes who dreamed up the Awesome strategy of trying to sue Linux out of existence, or at least make it look like a platform with hairy legal issues attaching to it. I hyperbolize only a little bit when I say this is almost an Enron-type scam.
I'm pretty much done here. *Every *day there are millions of people who devote their service to a selfless cause; *Every *day someone solves a problem and shares the solution with others -- without doing a marketing study on how best to profit from it; *Every *day people confront the powerful in the name of those who have no power; *Every *day people organize themselves around values that they feel are bigger than any of their individual desires.
"If you can't find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, don't know crap about life. And why the FUCK are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie?" --Adaptation
The fun part of Lx is definitely not the part where you get "basic functionality" (although SuSE, liveCDs, and some other guys are making that part kinda fun too.)
No; the best part is going from basic functionality to Killer System without investing any more money in software. Electronics simulation? Virtualization? Bioinformatics? Come on in, the water's fine.
"If you think that's not true, take a look at some socialist/communist web sites sometime. Intrinsic to their philosophy is forcible redistribution."
Oh, I was right. You're replying to some other websites and stuff. Okay. I thought you were replying to the things I said.
You might notice that I didn't call the OP a moneygrubbing self-centered hedonist, etc. Likewise I don't think using the word "cooperation" makes me a utopian/self-righteous/Statist whatever-else-you-think-I-am.
Are you joking? I consider it spyware. So does this guy. I imagine their EULA, like most, allows them to change the terms, etc. when it suits 'em. On the whole I'd rather not wake up one morning and have my machine unbootable and my data unreachable 'cause Microsoft is of the opinion that I need some more DRM on my box.
One of my favorite **AA tactics is ye olde 'CD sales have been going down' argument. You bet they have; around 1999 we all finally finished re-buying the crap we had already bought. It's basically the same argument as that dumb argument that global warming stopped in 1998
on McBride et. al's salaries when they move on to other companies, to continue trying to game the jacked-up "intellectual property" system. Anyone? I'm not a bookie but I'll put $800K out there. What severe repercussions!
If you're looking for a guy who's trying to force his ideas onto others, try GP: "Yup, life is competition, which means losers. To believe otherwise is to deny humanity."
Maybe you just replied to the wrong post. I don't see anything about forced equality or redistribution of wealth in my comment.
Most people I know would prefer a world of cooperation rather than competition, if it were possible. They don't necessarily have to take your word for it that it's impossible (the argument "didn't work in Russia" basically implies "if Stalin can't do it, no one can!") It's insulting to the dignity of human beings to suggest that they cannot affect how the world works -- especially the world of societies, which were created by them in the first place.
I think free software is a subset of open-source software. The four freedoms just can't be provided to a user unless the source code is, too. Freedom is the goal. In the "open source" movement the goal is just good software. It turns out that allowing some or all of the four freedoms has a tremendous positive impact on software quality... as things stand. I suspect that if times were different, and it were easier to create good software by tightly controlling the source code, this group would do exactly that. Hard to imagine such a situation, though... maybe a network-less world...
People like isms -- if something can (even inaccurately) be called "communist" they can safely dismiss it and not have to do any analysis of it as a concept. But I feel I should point out that calling someone "extremist" is basically the same thing. If rms has suggested people avoid anything that "is in some way capitalist" I'd love to see a citation.
I see this as a circuitous way of saying "FOSS types need to have different values." Replacing emphasis on "free" with an emphasis on "connected capitalism" sounds to me adopting the gamesmanship-and-dealmaking approach.
I'm looking in vain for something concrete that Phipps thinks FOSS "could learn" from capitalism... wish I had the complete text. Open source has always -- to me -- been about having more capitalists
The argument against "intellectual property" is not that, since it's intangible, everyone has the right to custom-order any piece of software/fontware/whatev from anyone else. The idea is:
Once the thing exists, it is just about impossible to exclude people from accessing its benefits. Like the sun. It would be a bitch to replace that $%^@er, so it has a tremendous amount of value. But since there's one up there, it would take a major C.M. Burns project to blot it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Stevens presided over this hearing. He knows the facts of the matter quite well. This is not a case of ignorance but of deception. Sorry, it just is.
so to speak?
How 'bout an over-under for the date the MPAA sues somebody who makes a wildly popular negative commentary that becomes more popular than the film? I'll also lay 3:2 they try to use copyright to enjoin the commentators.
I mean, I've been to a McDonald's in Las Colinas.
So, so many people have an optimistic view of the "intellectual property" system -- i.e. that our representatives contemplate the costs & benefits of a copyright extension, or of a *major expansion of patent scope (to software), etc. Sorry, it rarely works that way. You want changes in law, you plunks down yr money.
And I agree it's sad that a co. can game the system this much for this long, without providing detail about the alleged wrongdoing. It's basically a Gitmo approach to suing.
Seeing SCO capsize, dozens (hundreds?) of competent if obsolete UNIX hackers thrown out of work, with yummy parachutes for all the top-level blokes who dreamed up the Awesome strategy of trying to sue Linux out of existence, or at least make it look like a platform with hairy legal issues attaching to it. I hyperbolize only a little bit when I say this is almost an Enron-type scam.
"If you can't find that stuff in life, then you, my friend, don't know crap about life. And why the FUCK are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie?" --Adaptation
No; the best part is going from basic functionality to Killer System without investing any more money in software. Electronics simulation? Virtualization? Bioinformatics? Come on in, the water's fine.
Oh, I was right. You're replying to some other websites and stuff. Okay. I thought you were replying to the things I said.
You might notice that I didn't call the OP a moneygrubbing self-centered hedonist, etc. Likewise I don't think using the word "cooperation" makes me a utopian/self-righteous/Statist whatever-else-you-think-I-am.
Are you joking? I consider it spyware. So does this guy. I imagine their EULA, like most, allows them to change the terms, etc. when it suits 'em. On the whole I'd rather not wake up one morning and have my machine unbootable and my data unreachable 'cause Microsoft is of the opinion that I need some more DRM on my box.
I hadn't heard. Can we get a roll call or something?
One of my favorite **AA tactics is ye olde 'CD sales have been going down' argument. You bet they have; around 1999 we all finally finished re-buying the crap we had already bought. It's basically the same argument as that dumb argument that global warming stopped in 1998
um... how 'bout Linux. Worked for me at least.
on McBride et. al's salaries when they move on to other companies, to continue trying to game the jacked-up "intellectual property" system. Anyone? I'm not a bookie but I'll put $800K out there. What severe repercussions!
no text. none at all.
Maybe you just replied to the wrong post. I don't see anything about forced equality or redistribution of wealth in my comment.
Wik
Most people I know would prefer a world of cooperation rather than competition, if it were possible. They don't necessarily have to take your word for it that it's impossible (the argument "didn't work in Russia" basically implies "if Stalin can't do it, no one can!") It's insulting to the dignity of human beings to suggest that they cannot affect how the world works -- especially the world of societies, which were created by them in the first place.
I think free software is a subset of open-source software. The four freedoms just can't be provided to a user unless the source code is, too. Freedom is the goal. In the "open source" movement the goal is just good software. It turns out that allowing some or all of the four freedoms has a tremendous positive impact on software quality... as things stand. I suspect that if times were different, and it were easier to create good software by tightly controlling the source code, this group would do exactly that. Hard to imagine such a situation, though... maybe a network-less world...
People like isms -- if something can (even inaccurately) be called "communist" they can safely dismiss it and not have to do any analysis of it as a concept. But I feel I should point out that calling someone "extremist" is basically the same thing. If rms has suggested people avoid anything that "is in some way capitalist" I'd love to see a citation.
I'm looking in vain for something concrete that Phipps thinks FOSS "could learn" from capitalism... wish I had the complete text. Open source has always -- to me -- been about having more capitalists
That was a valuable gift you gave your friend. I hope he appreciates you.
I swear to Bog that I put that comment in before seeing the new front page news item. Weird world.
Once the thing exists, it is just about impossible to exclude people from accessing its benefits. Like the sun. It would be a bitch to replace that $%^@er, so it has a tremendous amount of value. But since there's one up there, it would take a major C.M. Burns project to blot it out.