Your post may be intended as a joke, but Stallman is indeed pushing for free BIOS'es. He probably supports open designs for devices too. He certainly supports well-documented interfaces for all hardware. If you read Stallman's writings, it's clear that he identifies a difference between physical objects and ideas. Physical objects (including hardware) will always have costs associated with production, which is quite different from the comparatively effortless reproduction and distribution of software/ideas. His viewpoint is certainly extreme, but not inconsistent.
I was very glad to see that the bounties are actually reasonably set. I believe that a competent coder could actually make reasonable money, from these bounties. A few months working (in spare time) on two of the "large project" bounties would be a reasonable amount of cash.
I certainly don't mean that any coder should quit his day job and only work for OSS bounties. The work isn't realiable or regular. And probably the amount he'll make, on a $/hour basis, is not as much as he could make in a normal job or consulting. However, as an added revenue stream, it's great: there's no real commitment or even schedule to keep, and it's more fun/rewarding to code for an OSS project.
I donate regularly to OSS projects. However, if more OSS projects had donation pages where I could link my donation to a particular bounty (a particular feature I really want to see in the next version), then alot of cash could probably be pulled together. I think that in this case a coder might be able to quit their day job. Some features would be worth alot, and a bunch of people would be willing to pay. Give us the means to make a difference, and we'll do it!
You are right that some people have inconsistent/hypocritical ethics when it comes to treatment of animals. However:
For the record, however, there are many meat-eating persons who oppose trophy hunting (but not necessarily hunting for food). This is not hypocritical.
There are also meat-eating people who oppose hunting for safety reasons. For example, having firearms available in society for hunting purposes increases the risk of accidental gun deaths, whereas having sharp blades in slaughter-houses does not as greatly increase the chance of death. This is not a hypocritical stance, either.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I merely want to point out that it is not *necessarily* hypocritical to eat meat and yet discourage hunting.
You are absolutely right. Many experiments have shown that if vision is impaired during certain critical developmental periods, then normal vision will never be possible, even if their eyes work perfectly. (The work began with Hubel and Wiesel's work on kittens, for which they received the 1981 Nobel Prize in medicine, but has been extended by many others.) These experiments have even shown that you can limit vision in certain ways (blocking out only one part of a visual field, for instance, or letting them mature in an environment devoid of a particular class of visual cue) and the animal will simply have that part of their visual system undeveloped (while other parts still work).
So there is no way that those born without vision will ever attain what we consider normal vision. That having been said, it may be possible that they can achieve some rudimentary visual capabilities. For instance, they may learn to use the stimulus from a 4X4 grid in order to help them know when objects are approaching, or to better interpret their other senses. It isn't much, but for someone who has been blind their whole life, even some vague visual information (like knowing how bright their surroundings are!) may be helpful. Obviously more research is necessary in order to know if even these limited abilities can be learned later in life.
This technique should be replaced with (or combined with) LIDAR techniques. LIDAR (Light Detecting And Ranging) is like a laser version of radar, and it can be used to generate 3D maps of objects or topography fairly quickly. A LIDAR-enabled plane can do a fly-over of a city and quickly generate 3D maps. For instance, check out these LIDAR images of New York pre and post 9/11.
I've always thought that these 3D maps of cities should be combined with satellite imagery so that you could 'paint' the rooftops onto the buildings and streets. In fact, most satellite images are at a slight angle, allowing you to paint the facades of buildings. The techniques from TFA show how you could paint even more facades in the 3D model/map fairly easily. I think the LIDAR data would greatly simplify the painting algorithm, since the correct 3D shape of every object is known.
I can't wait for the day when we can browse 3D maps online of any city. It would be useful for surveyors and architects of course, but also useful for planning trips, learning geography, and so on.
For those who don't know: the images that google makes available at maps.google.com are not the best they have access to. Google bought Keyhole and shortly thereafter launched google maps. However, anyone who did a keyhole free trial knows that the keyhole database had very high resolution images of the whole planet. What you see in google maps is about half the resolution that keyhole has. Not only that, but keyhole had imagery for the whole planet.
My point is that google is not limited in what it has available. Obviously they are releasing lower rez images for google maps (and charging for the keyhole service for professionals that need the higher rez), and it's also taking them some time to get google maps working for other parts of the world. But they already have access to a very extensive database (although possibly there are some licensing issues?).
I very much agree. I think having to memorize numbers is silly. I think having little number pads on phones is silly. Most cell-phone users only use the number pad to enter numbers the first time, and then just use their built-in directory. It would be so much easier if those tiny little buttons were gone and I could (reliably) speak the address/number/name of someone.
I want my phone number to be arbitrary text of my choosing
I'm not sure how it could be left up to the individual users. Even with a DNS-like system and name registration (to avoid name collisions), this is complexity that the average person doesn't necessarily want. How about this: every person is randomly assinged a random (non-dictionary) "word". Words could be strange sounding, made up of phonemes that are easier for speech recognition to understand. So my phone number might be "mu-bah-tok" and yours might be "jah-tok-cor"... there are enough phonemes that even with short words we could cover a huge number of telephone #s.
Contrary to what another poster indicated, I don't think that people find it easier to remember arbitrary numbers (at least not in the long term). The average person remembers maybe a dozen 7-digit phone numbers, but can remember thousands of words, and can even remember the names of many many dozen of (for example) strange-sounding names of cities from some foreign country. I think people would end up remembering these "phoneme-numbers" quite reliably for a large number of people. And if you see the "phoneme-number" for a company on the side of a bus, it will be easy to pronounce it into your cellphone (easier than remembering a phone number I would think).
I for one find slashdot very useful. When there's a geek-topic that I'm not too familiar with, I just have to read a/. discussion relating to it... and voila, I have access to a great collection of links on the topic, and from the various opinions I can judge what is crap and what isn't. The amazing thing is that the/. self-organized discussion is more useful than some seemingly well-planned and well-written tutorials or FAQs. Slashdotters cut to the good stuff, and provide links to the best sites. If an opinion pops up over and over on/. then it's probably worth looking into.
As an example, some time ago I knew nothing about VoIP. Reading slashdot, I understood quite quickly what it was all about, what the pros and cons were (minus the corporate sales pitch). I'm now using Vonage and I'm very happy with it. It was faster for me to read/. than to search through other sources.
So the discussion, the donated comments, have some real value. It's not *all* valuable, but there's enough good stuff that I find it useful (and fun!) to read and even contribute to slashdot.
I'm sorry if my original post sounded arrogant or accusatory. I'm honestly interested in knowing more about this technology. I'm happy to be corrected when I'm wrong, but it really helps to have sources to check.
With regard to flux, as far as I can tell, no one has reported a Fusor-style setup with a flux higher than 1E8 neutrons/second or perhaps 1E10 neutrons/second (example, example). Assuming an operating distance of 1 m, that's less than 1E5 n/(cm^2 s).
By comparison, modern reactor setups achieve 2E15 n/(cm^2 s) flux, and spallation sources can achieve 1E17 n/(cm^2 s) (see Fig 1 here). This is why I characterized a Fusor as "low flux." The flux of a Fusor is useful for some things, but for most applications of neutron beamlines, it is too weak. (Of course, more than flux matters: energy distribution also matters.)
From what I know, Fusors are great for studying some aspects of fusion reactions and maybe conducting experiments on neutron properties. I've also heard of using it for neutron interrogation (example), where you irradiate a sample and see what happens (for instance for characterizing nuclear samples, material identification, bomb detection). So, yes, it is a neutron source. However, it is not competitive with high-flux sources, and is (I think!) too weak for neutron scattering, diffraction, and imaging experiments. This is why I claimed that a fusor was not a general-purpose neutron source.
With regard to the universities you mentioned, it looks like the PULSTAR at North Carolina State is a reactor. The TRIGA at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is also a reactor. If those were not what you were referring to, then I apologize.
To recap: I relent and agree that a Fusor is indeed a viable neutron source. However, I would like to point out that its flux is much lower than other sources, making it unsuitable for many types of neutron beamline experiments. If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me.
Can you provide me references on that, please? I use neutron sources in my research, and I'm not aware of a Fusor setup being used at any real neutron beamlines around the world. They are all either particle accelerators that produce neutrons via spallation (such as the upcoming Spallation Neutron Source), or are radiological/nuclear reactors (such as NIST, HMI, etc.). Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone. As far as I know, the flux is much too low and the system not efficient.
muon-catalyzed fusion would only viably occur in a particle accelerator setup, which I already mentioned (where else are you getting the muons from). In any case (as far as I know) no such thing is actually used today at neutron facilities.
For examples of neutron-beamline research facilities that exist today, I refer you to
NIST, HMI, and the Spallation Neutron Source (still being built).
Well firstly there are other applications for fusion besides power production (such as neutron sources for imaging, detection, etc.).
Secondly, with regard to power production, every fusion experiment adds a piece to the puzzle, even if that particular device setup will never be used to generate power. Most large-scale fusion experiments that have been performed, in fact, had no intention of generating power. They merely wanted to push the boundaries of what was known about fusion, and what could be engineered with current technology. So I would say that experiments that don't directly involve power production are nevertheless useful in that they advance the state-of-the-art in terms of what is known about fusion processes.
I don't see how any of these new advances in achieving fusion bring us closer to use of fusion as power source.
That's science for ya: most of the experiments seem useless at first. Many of them are useless forever. But sometimes we discover something amazing, and sometimes the results of 100 experiments together finally get us some new technology or insight. We scientists don't know, at the outset, what will turn out to be the "next big thing"... so we just search and see what happens...
The only other ways to achieve neutron flux (that I'm aware of) are to (1) use a particle accelerator collision to release neutrons (i.e.: spallation) or (2) to use a radioactive source (or running nuclear recator) and guide the flux of exiting neutrons. Both of these are quite large and not very portable.
Although this research is not going to give us energy production, it is the smallest neutron source I've heard of (palm-sized according to article). This in and of itself is quite exciting, and it would have numerous applications in industry. Neutron sources right now are used to image industrial materials (it can be used to map the internal stress distribution in pipes, aircraft components, etc... and it can get images through materials that would block x-rays). Having portable neutron-imagers would be useful to industry for doing stress analysis/imaging on components while they are in actual use. I can think of lots more applications, but I'll leave it at that.
For those interested, here is the abstract of the Nature article in question (the article is already available online, to subscribers, even though it officially releases in tomorrow's issue of Nature):
Nature 434, 1115-1117 (28 April 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature03575
While progress in fusion research continues with magnetic[1] and inertial[2] confinement, alternative approaches--such as Coulomb explosions of deuterium clusters[3] and ultrafast laser-plasma interactions[4]--also provide insight into basic processes and technological applications. However, attempts to produce fusion in a room temperature solid-state setting, including 'cold' fusion[5] and 'bubble' fusion[6], have met with deep scepticism[7]. Here we report that gently heating a pyroelectric crystal in a deuterated atmosphere can generate fusion under desktop conditions. The electrostatic field of the crystal is used to generate and accelerate a deuteron beam (> 100 keV and >4 nA), which, upon striking a deuterated target, produces a neutron flux over 400 times the background level. The presence of neutrons from the reaction D + D --> 3He (820 keV) + n (2.45 MeV) within the target is confirmed by pulse shape analysis and proton recoil spectroscopy. As further evidence for this fusion reaction, we use a novel time-of-flight technique to demonstrate the delayed coincidence between the outgoing alpha-particle and the neutron. Although the reported fusion is not useful in the power-producing sense, we anticipate that the system will find application as a simple palm-sized neutron generator.
In 2002 there was a report claiming fusion due to cavitation. The article appeared in Science: Science, Vol 295, Issue 5561, 1868-1873 , 8 March 2002 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1067589]
The method involves irradiating a liquid with sound. The acoustic waves can cause microscopic bubbles to form in solution (cavitation). When these bubbles collapse, their temperatures can become quite high. Done properly, in fact, these cavitations can lead to sonoluminescence (creation of light from sound). The creation of a plasma under these conditions has been confirmed. The Science article further claimed that neutrons were measured, indicating that fusion temperatures had been achieved. They were certainly not claiming this as a power source (yet), since energy input was much greater than output.
The interesting thing is the controversy that resulted, and, as far as I know, is still not resolved. Scientists worldwide are still split on whether or not fusion has really been achieved. It will take some time longer before we know for sure (altough the most recent reports I've read lean towards this really being fusion).
I'm bringing this up because it seems rather similar to what we have here. It is a high-profile announcement of fusion in a rather unusual setup. I anticipate that this will be met with much skepticism (rightly), and that it will take some time before we know "for sure" that it's really fusion.
Anyways, highly interesting results, and I'm looking forward for future confirmation/elaboration of these experiments. But I wouldn't get too excited, since these kinds of discoveries sometimes have subtle flaws (or mis-interpretations) that only become revealled when the full scrutiny of the scientific process is applied to them.
I think it boils down to the fact that most people I recommend products to are friends. I want them to get more out of their lives/computers. I am happy when a friend tells me about a new application that is faster/better/cheaper than something I already use. Similarly, I hope they are happy when I point out that a piece of software can make their lives better (by eliminating popups or whatever).
Secondly, since these people are my friends, and their computers have copies of my email address, I'd rather their machine not get taken-over and turned into a spamming zombie or whatever! So that's why I encourage them to switch to more secure software (which is usually open source).
In the end, there are so many compelling reasons to switch to open-source software (security, support the little guy, freedom of information, low-cost, transparent implementation, avoidance or vendor lock-in, etc. etc.) and so few reasons not to switch (complacency...), that it makes sense to encourage others to look into the advantages of OSS. It's not a situation where there is just one or two small advantages... it's a case where in addition to the product being better for the user,[1] it's also ideologically "the right thing to do." Rare when that happens.
[1] Note that I'm implicitly talking about "good" OSS... there's lots of crappy open-source and non-open-source software... so I'm implicitly comparing the "best OSS" to the "best closed-source software"
JEF RASKIN, professor of computer science at the University of Chicago, is best known for his book, The Humane Interface (Addison-Wesley, 2000), and for having created the Macintosh project at Apple. He holds many interface patents, consults for companies around the world, and is often called upon as a speaker at conferences, seminars, and universities. His current project, The Humane Environment (http://humane.sourceforge.net/home/index.html), is attracting interest in both the computer science and business worlds.
For those who don't know (which apparently includes whoever is in charge of the linked article), Jef Raskin passed away this february. You can view
the official press release, or read more about his contributions to computer science. I don't know when the article was written, but it seems it should mention that Raskin has passed away. In any case, his advice about commenting is good, just as his advice on user-interface design has always been lucid and helpful.
I've heard this "but what will stupid people do when robots take away all the simple jobs?" complaint against automation from many people, and I just don't buy it.
Despite considerable automation in industry, we still need droves of people to maintain these robots, to work desk jobs, to answer phones, to make decisions, etc. For instance, the current unemployment rate has very little to do with robots stealing jobs.
Perhaps I'm more optimistic about the average human IQ, but I honestly believe that the average person will rise to the challenge of a more complicated job if their old job is replaced with a robot. I'm not saying the everyone can become an electrical engineer overnight, but in many cases people can handle (and even enjoy) a more interesting and technical job. Moreover, most of the jobs that robots take over are boring, annoying, or downright dangerous. No one wants to be doing those jobs. No one finds those jobs fullfilling and wonderful. So I see no reason why my fellow man should have to endure that crappy job if a machine can do it instead. Automation will push for a society where a greater % of the population is educated, and hence work in less boring jobs. This is a good thing, imho.
"In other words, BitMover Inc. spent money and did research to determine what features were needed. Now Andrew Tridgell will simply implement thoses features."
I'm not trying to be snide, but your quote can be re-written as:
In other words, Microsoft Inc. spent money and did research to determine what features were needed (in MS Office). Now OpenOffice will simply implement thoses features.
I, for one, support OpenOffice and similar efforts. I don't think that MS or BitMover Inc. don't deserve to make some money from their ideas. However, nothing says that they can keep making money forever, off the same stale ideas, and that they don't have to innovate to stay alive. If other people (whether other companies or OSS initiatives) want to reproduce the functionality, I say let them. It doesn't cut into the profits of a competitive innovative company that is constantly launching new versions of their software that respond to customer needs (and are priced appropriately). It does cut into the profits of companies that let their products stagnant (as Firefox is cutting into IE marketshare, for instance).
I think this competition-due-to-copying (the sincerest form of flattery) is a good thing for the end consumer. I see no reason to discourage F/OSS developers from using the best ideas from comercial software packages.
Much of what we finally see as images (be it in movies or magazines or billboards, etc.) already goes through a digital processing step, anyway. It doesn't really matter that it was captured in analog and printed out in analog because it went through a digital step (for photomanipulation, color balance, special effects, whatever). By acquiring directly in a digital format, we can lower the quality losses inherent in the analog-to-digital conversion.
In terms of resolution, I see no reason why a digital camera with sufficient pixel density wouldn't out-perform a conventional film camera. In terms of response to light, a CCD array obviously doesn't have the exact same response that film has... but AFAIK one of the advantages to working with digital images in their raw format is that you can re-balance them to simulate different types of light-responses. I'm pretty sure you can reproduce the feel of whatever type of film you want to. I honestly don't think that the quality of a full page printout will be any lower. In fact, I think the future of zooming into photos got alot better when digital came onto the scene!
Just to add to this post... as someone who has worked in a nuclear reactor, I'd like to comment on the safety of nuclear vs. coal/petroleum industries. In addition to nuclear releasing far less pollution into the environment (and all its waste being very localized and contained), there is the issue of worker safety.
The nuclear industry is very well regulated. Worker safety (and radiation exposure) is meticulously monitored and recorded. Because the entire system is so paranoid and regulated, it is very safe. The most dangerous thing about working in a nuclear plant is conventional industrial accidents (like a crane falling on you). The risk increase due to the presence of nuclear power is minimal.
It is very strange that the public would be shocked and horrified if 10 people were killed in a nuclear power plant accident. However, many more than that are injured or killed every year in the coal/petroleum industry (think of fires on oil rigs, etc.) because this industry is far less safety-oriented. (It's also worth reminding that nuclear power is "more expensive" than other power sources mostly due to this level of regulation.)
The number of injuries/deaths in the nuclear power industry, per year, is small compared to other power industries (and indeed compared to most industries in general). So from the point of view of worker safety, nuclear (in its current, regulated form) is the best.
I agree with the parent. The argument that "GM crops will help 3rd world countries" is appealing but fundamentally flawed. I am in favor of (regulated) research into GM crops, since there is much potential. However, (as many reviews in Science and Nature magazine have pointed out) it is silly to believe that GM crops will help out 3rd world countries anymore than modern bred crops have. After all, these GM crops are being designed by large western corporations. They are being optimized for conditions that are beneficial to these companies. And worse, they are being licensed and patented by these companies. Third-world countries won't get "cheaper food", or higher wages to cultivate these crops... the big companies will just have higher crop yields and slightly higher profits.
The problem is that GM crops *could* be used to help feed the 3rd-world... but then again conventional crops would also do the job. The problem is not lack of agricultural land or even food resources, it's the fact that there is no economic incentive for 1st-world countries to donate food to the 3rd-world (nor is that really a sustainable solution). The real limitations to feeding the whole world are economic and social, not technological, hence GM crops have a small part to play.
The "feed the 3rd world" argument is something the companies would like us to believe. But ultimately alot more than GM crops is going to be needed to address that global issue.
Plus, you've developed a system that could result in perpetual patents -- what if you never reach your predetermined profit margin -- does the patent never pass into the public domain?
Well there could be a time limit too. But you're right, there are problems, especially because it would be in the companies best interest to downplay the true profits they make off a patent, so that the patent can last longer. Enforcing would be impossible.
So what happens when a company can't accurately forcast its expected profits? What about the inventors of DAT? They probably overestimated their expected profits -- should they be penalized because the public (with some help from the government) didn't embrace their technology? What about the inventors of the CD -- what if they underestimated how fast CD's would take off and how huge the market would be -- should they be penalized?
That doesn't bother me so much. Some companies will make bad calls (DAT), others will reach their desired profit quickly (CD). The idea is merely for the company to set a limit on how valuable they think their idea/copyright is. If their idea is more brilliant than they thought, then society reaps the rewards but the company doesn't. I'm not bothered by that.
Just curious, would you be comfortable if society were to agree on an acceptable salary for you to make?
Well there's a difference. For employment, there will always be a "market value" for doing a certain kind of job. But IP is different. It is not a natural right to control how your ideas are used/commercialized by others. Copyright and patents are a government-granted monopoly and the question is whether the current monopoly is fair, or if some other system is more fair. If a musician makes an album and asks for 10,000$ (and gets it) but it turns into a "best-seller," then he deserves accolades... but does he deserve endless royalties? I would say that he deserves a cut of every commercial sale, but that the government no longer needs to enforce laws for him to make more money (i.e.: I can make digital copies without it being illegal). That's just my opinion.
Again, a command economy. Which doesn't appear to work, BTW.
Well I agree with the points you've made. Upon further reflection, I agree that the system wouldn't work. I'm fond of trying to come up with new schemes that might work... but I don't think that one's a winner. Thanks for the comments.
Well from the thinking I've done on the subject, I've come up with/come across 8 different schemes that seem viable, to varying extents. They all have their own unique problems and advantages. Briefly, these are some possibility that I would consider 'fair' (although I know that many slashdotters are not as socialist as I, and would not agree with some of these):
1. Government Funding for the Arts
Taxes are increased, and a government body redistributes money to content producers (authors, movie studios, etc.). This would be very similar to how academic research is currently funded. 'Reasonable' prices would be put on content. This would probably mean that Hollywood actors would not longer be able to demand big salaries. For those of us who don't trust the government, perhaps the system could have, on the tax form, an ability to select which artist or content producer you wanted to send some of your tax dollars to. That way, the people could still use their money to fund projects they liked.
2. Artistic Freedom Voucher
Similar to #1, artists are supported by tax-exemption coupons, similar to charitable donations. This is not my idea, please refer to
Dean Bakers's text.
3. Awards
As a variant of #1, perhaps an annual awards ceremony could be held where substantial awards are given to the content that was most highly acclaimed, appreciated, and voted for by the public. This system could exist alongside traditional copyright, if the rule was that only works released under creative commons are eligible for these awards. Essentially this would be an incentive to release work into the public.
4. Funding Amalgamation
Perhaps the onus could be put on the people? Instead of legally forcing people to pay for work (via copyright), companies could produce content, and demand a certain fee before it is released into the commons. The people who care would then just pay into an intermediary company, that would negotiate the cost of the work. Yes, I know that the Star Trek fans were not able to save Enterprise via amalgamating their funds... but if this system were fully implemented, people would take a more active role in helping decide what content is created... and perhaps less crap would be produced, since no one would bother buying it.
5. Donations
Donations are always an acceptable model for paying for work. Open source software seems to do well with that model.
6. Service Business Model
Copyrighted works could be considered services instead of products. Basically, we pay for convenient access to a database of works, rather than buying each work one at a time. People pay for timely access to new artistic works, but there is nothing that prevents works from being copied. The viability of this model has been analyzed, I refer you to this
MIT report.
7. Limited Copyright
Modern technology has made everything in life more rapid... yet copyright still lasts (effectively) forever! Why should Windows 95 be protected for 75 years when it is replaced within 3 years and obsolete within 5 years? Perhaps the timescales should be 'fair.' Like news stories are protected for 2 weeks, movies and video games for 6 years, software for 4 years, books for 10 years. In the current system, the copyright effectively NEVER expires.
8. Combinations
No single solution will work for every industry... and indeed many of the proposals I've outlined above are not mutually exclusive. Careful combinations could yield best results. Or perhaps it could be up to the copyright holder what they wanted to select.
Okay, I know I'm hopelessly idealistic to think that any of these could ever be implemented... but I'm still interested to hear any criticisms or comments...
That's a very interesting idea. Let me expand upon it (and see what other slashdotters think...):
In this scheme, the original IP (patent or copyright) request would include an estimate of the costs that went into generating the IP. Society would then agree on an acceptable profit margin (which might vary from industry to industry). The IP would be protected up until the costs had been recouped, and the profit margin had been reached. At this point, it would be judged that the company had made sufficient profit, and the IP would be released into public domain. In this system, companies do not make endless profits. Rather, each work is rewarded commensurate to the effort put into it.
Of course, this system seems easy to abuse. Any corporation could mis-represent the amount of work that went into a project. In fact, who would determine what employees had contributed to a project (and hence their salaries would need to be included in the calculation), and what employees had not? The logistics would be hellish.
A possible way to discourage inflation of this "desired profit margin" benchmark would be to require a licensing fee proportional to the requested final sum. One could even require the licensing agent to hand over a significant fraction of the desired profit sum (perhaps 10%), which would be held until such time that the desired profit margin had been reached. The interest accrued on this money would be used to fund the IP bureau (it would not be given back to the company). This temporary loss of capital (without even obtaining interest from it) would highly discourage companies from requesting ridiculous profit margins, since locking up money is bad for the bottom line. This would also allow fair prices to be set on works, and would discourage companies hoarding patents or taking out patents merely speculatively. Each patent would have a cost and expected profit associated with it. An author could set a reasonable cost for a book that took him one year to produce, perhaps 60,000$. The 6,000$ investment he would have to make would not greatly inconvenience him. The laws could also stipulate refunding of the held fraction if the IP holder wishes to immediately release the IP into the public domain. That way, IP holders would have to make realistic decisions about their works. If profits were not matching expectations, they could cut their losses.
In order to further encourage innovation by independents, these fees could be waived for sufficiently small profit requests. It could, for instance, be free for any request of 100,000$ or less, which would allow independent writers, musicians, programmers, etc. to achieve reasonable profits without investment. In fact, the system could be non-linear, as taxation systems are: for small expected profits, no fees would be required, however the proportional fee would grow as the desired profit grew. This would force companies to accurately predict what the expected profits would be, to accurately assign a value to a given piece of IP.
There is also a principle in psychology called "dilution of responsibility." A group of people may collectively agree to something risky or immoral, even though each individual person disagrees with the decision, and would *never* act that way on their own. Essentially, each person feels that they are not uniquely responsible for the decision, and so are more prone to making decisions that are dangerous or rash (since they don't anticipate having to answer for the decision).
This phenomenon in some cases results in a large crowd of people watching a crime, and no one actually does anything (or even calls the cops) because everyone assumes that someone else is taking care of the problem. This is also why it is highly recommended, in an emergency, to not just say "help" but to single out a particular person, point at them, and ask *them* for help.
The same principle seems to be at work with IP law. Most people, if they really had to think about it, wouldn't support the status quo, but everyone somehow feels that it's someone else's problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post may be intended as a joke, but Stallman is indeed pushing for free BIOS'es. He probably supports open designs for devices too. He certainly supports well-documented interfaces for all hardware. If you read Stallman's writings, it's clear that he identifies a difference between physical objects and ideas. Physical objects (including hardware) will always have costs associated with production, which is quite different from the comparatively effortless reproduction and distribution of software/ideas. His viewpoint is certainly extreme, but not inconsistent.
I was very glad to see that the bounties are actually reasonably set. I believe that a competent coder could actually make reasonable money, from these bounties. A few months working (in spare time) on two of the "large project" bounties would be a reasonable amount of cash.
I certainly don't mean that any coder should quit his day job and only work for OSS bounties. The work isn't realiable or regular. And probably the amount he'll make, on a $/hour basis, is not as much as he could make in a normal job or consulting. However, as an added revenue stream, it's great: there's no real commitment or even schedule to keep, and it's more fun/rewarding to code for an OSS project.
I donate regularly to OSS projects. However, if more OSS projects had donation pages where I could link my donation to a particular bounty (a particular feature I really want to see in the next version), then alot of cash could probably be pulled together. I think that in this case a coder might be able to quit their day job. Some features would be worth alot, and a bunch of people would be willing to pay. Give us the means to make a difference, and we'll do it!
You are right that some people have inconsistent/hypocritical ethics when it comes to treatment of animals. However:
For the record, however, there are many meat-eating persons who oppose trophy hunting (but not necessarily hunting for food). This is not hypocritical.
There are also meat-eating people who oppose hunting for safety reasons. For example, having firearms available in society for hunting purposes increases the risk of accidental gun deaths, whereas having sharp blades in slaughter-houses does not as greatly increase the chance of death. This is not a hypocritical stance, either.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I merely want to point out that it is not *necessarily* hypocritical to eat meat and yet discourage hunting.
You are absolutely right. Many experiments have shown that if vision is impaired during certain critical developmental periods, then normal vision will never be possible, even if their eyes work perfectly. (The work began with Hubel and Wiesel's work on kittens, for which they received the 1981 Nobel Prize in medicine, but has been extended by many others.) These experiments have even shown that you can limit vision in certain ways (blocking out only one part of a visual field, for instance, or letting them mature in an environment devoid of a particular class of visual cue) and the animal will simply have that part of their visual system undeveloped (while other parts still work).
So there is no way that those born without vision will ever attain what we consider normal vision. That having been said, it may be possible that they can achieve some rudimentary visual capabilities. For instance, they may learn to use the stimulus from a 4X4 grid in order to help them know when objects are approaching, or to better interpret their other senses. It isn't much, but for someone who has been blind their whole life, even some vague visual information (like knowing how bright their surroundings are!) may be helpful. Obviously more research is necessary in order to know if even these limited abilities can be learned later in life.
This technique should be replaced with (or combined with) LIDAR techniques. LIDAR (Light Detecting And Ranging) is like a laser version of radar, and it can be used to generate 3D maps of objects or topography fairly quickly. A LIDAR-enabled plane can do a fly-over of a city and quickly generate 3D maps. For instance, check out these LIDAR images of New York pre and post 9/11.
I've always thought that these 3D maps of cities should be combined with satellite imagery so that you could 'paint' the rooftops onto the buildings and streets. In fact, most satellite images are at a slight angle, allowing you to paint the facades of buildings. The techniques from TFA show how you could paint even more facades in the 3D model/map fairly easily. I think the LIDAR data would greatly simplify the painting algorithm, since the correct 3D shape of every object is known.
I can't wait for the day when we can browse 3D maps online of any city. It would be useful for surveyors and architects of course, but also useful for planning trips, learning geography, and so on.
For those who don't know: the images that google makes available at maps.google.com are not the best they have access to. Google bought Keyhole and shortly thereafter launched google maps. However, anyone who did a keyhole free trial knows that the keyhole database had very high resolution images of the whole planet. What you see in google maps is about half the resolution that keyhole has. Not only that, but keyhole had imagery for the whole planet.
My point is that google is not limited in what it has available. Obviously they are releasing lower rez images for google maps (and charging for the keyhole service for professionals that need the higher rez), and it's also taking them some time to get google maps working for other parts of the world. But they already have access to a very extensive database (although possibly there are some licensing issues?).
I very much agree. I think having to memorize numbers is silly. I think having little number pads on phones is silly. Most cell-phone users only use the number pad to enter numbers the first time, and then just use their built-in directory. It would be so much easier if those tiny little buttons were gone and I could (reliably) speak the address/number/name of someone.
I want my phone number to be arbitrary text of my choosing
I'm not sure how it could be left up to the individual users. Even with a DNS-like system and name registration (to avoid name collisions), this is complexity that the average person doesn't necessarily want. How about this: every person is randomly assinged a random (non-dictionary) "word". Words could be strange sounding, made up of phonemes that are easier for speech recognition to understand. So my phone number might be "mu-bah-tok" and yours might be "jah-tok-cor"... there are enough phonemes that even with short words we could cover a huge number of telephone #s.
Contrary to what another poster indicated, I don't think that people find it easier to remember arbitrary numbers (at least not in the long term). The average person remembers maybe a dozen 7-digit phone numbers, but can remember thousands of words, and can even remember the names of many many dozen of (for example) strange-sounding names of cities from some foreign country. I think people would end up remembering these "phoneme-numbers" quite reliably for a large number of people. And if you see the "phoneme-number" for a company on the side of a bus, it will be easy to pronounce it into your cellphone (easier than remembering a phone number I would think).
I for one find slashdot very useful. When there's a geek-topic that I'm not too familiar with, I just have to read a /. discussion relating to it... and voila, I have access to a great collection of links on the topic, and from the various opinions I can judge what is crap and what isn't. The amazing thing is that the /. self-organized discussion is more useful than some seemingly well-planned and well-written tutorials or FAQs. Slashdotters cut to the good stuff, and provide links to the best sites. If an opinion pops up over and over on /. then it's probably worth looking into.
/. than to search through other sources.
As an example, some time ago I knew nothing about VoIP. Reading slashdot, I understood quite quickly what it was all about, what the pros and cons were (minus the corporate sales pitch). I'm now using Vonage and I'm very happy with it. It was faster for me to read
So the discussion, the donated comments, have some real value. It's not *all* valuable, but there's enough good stuff that I find it useful (and fun!) to read and even contribute to slashdot.
(then again, your mileage may vary)
I'm sorry if my original post sounded arrogant or accusatory. I'm honestly interested in knowing more about this technology. I'm happy to be corrected when I'm wrong, but it really helps to have sources to check.
_ facilities/n_worldwide w orldwide.htm
With regard to flux, as far as I can tell, no one has reported a Fusor-style setup with a flux higher than 1E8 neutrons/second or perhaps 1E10 neutrons/second (example, example). Assuming an operating distance of 1 m, that's less than 1E5 n/(cm^2 s).
By comparison, modern reactor setups achieve 2E15 n/(cm^2 s) flux, and spallation sources can achieve 1E17 n/(cm^2 s) (see Fig 1 here). This is why I characterized a Fusor as "low flux." The flux of a Fusor is useful for some things, but for most applications of neutron beamlines, it is too weak. (Of course, more than flux matters: energy distribution also matters.)
From what I know, Fusors are great for studying some aspects of fusion reactions and maybe conducting experiments on neutron properties. I've also heard of using it for neutron interrogation (example), where you irradiate a sample and see what happens (for instance for characterizing nuclear samples, material identification, bomb detection). So, yes, it is a neutron source. However, it is not competitive with high-flux sources, and is (I think!) too weak for neutron scattering, diffraction, and imaging experiments. This is why I claimed that a fusor was not a general-purpose neutron source.
This is also why no Fusor sources are listed on any "worldwide neutron source" lists, as far as I can tell:
http://neutron.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/links.html
http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/nsources.html
http://www.neutron.anl.gov/facilities.html
http://neutron.neutron-eu.net/n_users/n_where_the
http://www.sciner.com/Neutron/neutron_facilities_
With regard to the universities you mentioned, it looks like the PULSTAR at North Carolina State is a reactor. The TRIGA at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is also a reactor. If those were not what you were referring to, then I apologize.
To recap: I relent and agree that a Fusor is indeed a viable neutron source. However, I would like to point out that its flux is much lower than other sources, making it unsuitable for many types of neutron beamline experiments. If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me.
It is commonly available as a neutron source.
Can you provide me references on that, please? I use neutron sources in my research, and I'm not aware of a Fusor setup being used at any real neutron beamlines around the world. They are all either particle accelerators that produce neutrons via spallation (such as the upcoming Spallation Neutron Source), or are radiological/nuclear reactors (such as NIST, HMI, etc.). Despite the simplicity of the Fusor, it is not actually used as a neutron source by anyone. As far as I know, the flux is much too low and the system not efficient.
muon-catalyzed fusion would only viably occur in a particle accelerator setup, which I already mentioned (where else are you getting the muons from). In any case (as far as I know) no such thing is actually used today at neutron facilities.
For examples of neutron-beamline research facilities that exist today, I refer you to NIST, HMI, and the Spallation Neutron Source (still being built).
Well firstly there are other applications for fusion besides power production (such as neutron sources for imaging, detection, etc.).
Secondly, with regard to power production, every fusion experiment adds a piece to the puzzle, even if that particular device setup will never be used to generate power. Most large-scale fusion experiments that have been performed, in fact, had no intention of generating power. They merely wanted to push the boundaries of what was known about fusion, and what could be engineered with current technology. So I would say that experiments that don't directly involve power production are nevertheless useful in that they advance the state-of-the-art in terms of what is known about fusion processes.
I don't see how any of these new advances in achieving fusion bring us closer to use of fusion as power source.
That's science for ya: most of the experiments seem useless at first. Many of them are useless forever. But sometimes we discover something amazing, and sometimes the results of 100 experiments together finally get us some new technology or insight. We scientists don't know, at the outset, what will turn out to be the "next big thing"... so we just search and see what happens...
Although this research is not going to give us energy production, it is the smallest neutron source I've heard of (palm-sized according to article). This in and of itself is quite exciting, and it would have numerous applications in industry. Neutron sources right now are used to image industrial materials (it can be used to map the internal stress distribution in pipes, aircraft components, etc... and it can get images through materials that would block x-rays). Having portable neutron-imagers would be useful to industry for doing stress analysis/imaging on components while they are in actual use. I can think of lots more applications, but I'll leave it at that.
For those interested, here is the abstract of the Nature article in question (the article is already available online, to subscribers, even though it officially releases in tomorrow's issue of Nature):
Nature 434, 1115-1117 (28 April 2005) | doi: 10.1038/nature03575
In 2002 there was a report claiming fusion due to cavitation. The article appeared in Science:
Science, Vol 295, Issue 5561, 1868-1873 , 8 March 2002 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1067589]
The method involves irradiating a liquid with sound. The acoustic waves can cause microscopic bubbles to form in solution (cavitation). When these bubbles collapse, their temperatures can become quite high. Done properly, in fact, these cavitations can lead to sonoluminescence (creation of light from sound). The creation of a plasma under these conditions has been confirmed. The Science article further claimed that neutrons were measured, indicating that fusion temperatures had been achieved. They were certainly not claiming this as a power source (yet), since energy input was much greater than output.
The interesting thing is the controversy that resulted, and, as far as I know, is still not resolved. Scientists worldwide are still split on whether or not fusion has really been achieved. It will take some time longer before we know for sure (altough the most recent reports I've read lean towards this really being fusion).
I'm bringing this up because it seems rather similar to what we have here. It is a high-profile announcement of fusion in a rather unusual setup. I anticipate that this will be met with much skepticism (rightly), and that it will take some time before we know "for sure" that it's really fusion.
Anyways, highly interesting results, and I'm looking forward for future confirmation/elaboration of these experiments. But I wouldn't get too excited, since these kinds of discoveries sometimes have subtle flaws (or mis-interpretations) that only become revealled when the full scrutiny of the scientific process is applied to them.
I think it boils down to the fact that most people I recommend products to are friends. I want them to get more out of their lives/computers. I am happy when a friend tells me about a new application that is faster/better/cheaper than something I already use. Similarly, I hope they are happy when I point out that a piece of software can make their lives better (by eliminating popups or whatever).
Secondly, since these people are my friends, and their computers have copies of my email address, I'd rather their machine not get taken-over and turned into a spamming zombie or whatever! So that's why I encourage them to switch to more secure software (which is usually open source).
In the end, there are so many compelling reasons to switch to open-source software (security, support the little guy, freedom of information, low-cost, transparent implementation, avoidance or vendor lock-in, etc. etc.) and so few reasons not to switch (complacency...), that it makes sense to encourage others to look into the advantages of OSS. It's not a situation where there is just one or two small advantages... it's a case where in addition to the product being better for the user,[1] it's also ideologically "the right thing to do." Rare when that happens.
[1] Note that I'm implicitly talking about "good" OSS... there's lots of crappy open-source and non-open-source software... so I'm implicitly comparing the "best OSS" to the "best closed-source software"
JEF RASKIN, professor of computer science at the University of Chicago, is best known for his book, The Humane Interface (Addison-Wesley, 2000), and for having created the Macintosh project at Apple. He holds many interface patents, consults for companies around the world, and is often called upon as a speaker at conferences, seminars, and universities. His current project, The Humane Environment (http://humane.sourceforge.net/home/index.html), is attracting interest in both the computer science and business worlds.
For those who don't know (which apparently includes whoever is in charge of the linked article), Jef Raskin passed away this february. You can view the official press release, or read more about his contributions to computer science. I don't know when the article was written, but it seems it should mention that Raskin has passed away. In any case, his advice about commenting is good, just as his advice on user-interface design has always been lucid and helpful.
I've heard this "but what will stupid people do when robots take away all the simple jobs?" complaint against automation from many people, and I just don't buy it.
Despite considerable automation in industry, we still need droves of people to maintain these robots, to work desk jobs, to answer phones, to make decisions, etc. For instance, the current unemployment rate has very little to do with robots stealing jobs.
Perhaps I'm more optimistic about the average human IQ, but I honestly believe that the average person will rise to the challenge of a more complicated job if their old job is replaced with a robot. I'm not saying the everyone can become an electrical engineer overnight, but in many cases people can handle (and even enjoy) a more interesting and technical job. Moreover, most of the jobs that robots take over are boring, annoying, or downright dangerous. No one wants to be doing those jobs. No one finds those jobs fullfilling and wonderful. So I see no reason why my fellow man should have to endure that crappy job if a machine can do it instead. Automation will push for a society where a greater % of the population is educated, and hence work in less boring jobs. This is a good thing, imho.
"In other words, BitMover Inc. spent money and did research to determine what features were needed. Now Andrew Tridgell will simply implement thoses features."
I'm not trying to be snide, but your quote can be re-written as:
In other words, Microsoft Inc. spent money and did research to determine what features were needed (in MS Office). Now OpenOffice will simply implement thoses features.
I, for one, support OpenOffice and similar efforts. I don't think that MS or BitMover Inc. don't deserve to make some money from their ideas. However, nothing says that they can keep making money forever, off the same stale ideas, and that they don't have to innovate to stay alive. If other people (whether other companies or OSS initiatives) want to reproduce the functionality, I say let them. It doesn't cut into the profits of a competitive innovative company that is constantly launching new versions of their software that respond to customer needs (and are priced appropriately). It does cut into the profits of companies that let their products stagnant (as Firefox is cutting into IE marketshare, for instance).
I think this competition-due-to-copying (the sincerest form of flattery) is a good thing for the end consumer. I see no reason to discourage F/OSS developers from using the best ideas from comercial software packages.
Much of what we finally see as images (be it in movies or magazines or billboards, etc.) already goes through a digital processing step, anyway. It doesn't really matter that it was captured in analog and printed out in analog because it went through a digital step (for photomanipulation, color balance, special effects, whatever). By acquiring directly in a digital format, we can lower the quality losses inherent in the analog-to-digital conversion.
In terms of resolution, I see no reason why a digital camera with sufficient pixel density wouldn't out-perform a conventional film camera. In terms of response to light, a CCD array obviously doesn't have the exact same response that film has... but AFAIK one of the advantages to working with digital images in their raw format is that you can re-balance them to simulate different types of light-responses. I'm pretty sure you can reproduce the feel of whatever type of film you want to. I honestly don't think that the quality of a full page printout will be any lower. In fact, I think the future of zooming into photos got alot better when digital came onto the scene!
Just to add to this post... as someone who has worked in a nuclear reactor, I'd like to comment on the safety of nuclear vs. coal/petroleum industries. In addition to nuclear releasing far less pollution into the environment (and all its waste being very localized and contained), there is the issue of worker safety.
The nuclear industry is very well regulated. Worker safety (and radiation exposure) is meticulously monitored and recorded. Because the entire system is so paranoid and regulated, it is very safe. The most dangerous thing about working in a nuclear plant is conventional industrial accidents (like a crane falling on you). The risk increase due to the presence of nuclear power is minimal.
It is very strange that the public would be shocked and horrified if 10 people were killed in a nuclear power plant accident. However, many more than that are injured or killed every year in the coal/petroleum industry (think of fires on oil rigs, etc.) because this industry is far less safety-oriented. (It's also worth reminding that nuclear power is "more expensive" than other power sources mostly due to this level of regulation.)
The number of injuries/deaths in the nuclear power industry, per year, is small compared to other power industries (and indeed compared to most industries in general). So from the point of view of worker safety, nuclear (in its current, regulated form) is the best.
I agree with the parent. The argument that "GM crops will help 3rd world countries" is appealing but fundamentally flawed. I am in favor of (regulated) research into GM crops, since there is much potential. However, (as many reviews in Science and Nature magazine have pointed out) it is silly to believe that GM crops will help out 3rd world countries anymore than modern bred crops have. After all, these GM crops are being designed by large western corporations. They are being optimized for conditions that are beneficial to these companies. And worse, they are being licensed and patented by these companies. Third-world countries won't get "cheaper food", or higher wages to cultivate these crops... the big companies will just have higher crop yields and slightly higher profits.
The problem is that GM crops *could* be used to help feed the 3rd-world... but then again conventional crops would also do the job. The problem is not lack of agricultural land or even food resources, it's the fact that there is no economic incentive for 1st-world countries to donate food to the 3rd-world (nor is that really a sustainable solution). The real limitations to feeding the whole world are economic and social, not technological, hence GM crops have a small part to play.
The "feed the 3rd world" argument is something the companies would like us to believe. But ultimately alot more than GM crops is going to be needed to address that global issue.
Plus, you've developed a system that could result in perpetual patents -- what if you never reach your predetermined profit margin -- does the patent never pass into the public domain?
Well there could be a time limit too. But you're right, there are problems, especially because it would be in the companies best interest to downplay the true profits they make off a patent, so that the patent can last longer. Enforcing would be impossible.
So what happens when a company can't accurately forcast its expected profits? What about the inventors of DAT? They probably overestimated their expected profits -- should they be penalized because the public (with some help from the government) didn't embrace their technology? What about the inventors of the CD -- what if they underestimated how fast CD's would take off and how huge the market would be -- should they be penalized?
That doesn't bother me so much. Some companies will make bad calls (DAT), others will reach their desired profit quickly (CD). The idea is merely for the company to set a limit on how valuable they think their idea/copyright is. If their idea is more brilliant than they thought, then society reaps the rewards but the company doesn't. I'm not bothered by that.
Just curious, would you be comfortable if society were to agree on an acceptable salary for you to make?
Well there's a difference. For employment, there will always be a "market value" for doing a certain kind of job. But IP is different. It is not a natural right to control how your ideas are used/commercialized by others. Copyright and patents are a government-granted monopoly and the question is whether the current monopoly is fair, or if some other system is more fair. If a musician makes an album and asks for 10,000$ (and gets it) but it turns into a "best-seller," then he deserves accolades... but does he deserve endless royalties? I would say that he deserves a cut of every commercial sale, but that the government no longer needs to enforce laws for him to make more money (i.e.: I can make digital copies without it being illegal). That's just my opinion.
Again, a command economy. Which doesn't appear to work, BTW.
Well I agree with the points you've made. Upon further reflection, I agree that the system wouldn't work. I'm fond of trying to come up with new schemes that might work... but I don't think that one's a winner. Thanks for the comments.
1. Government Funding for the Arts 2. Artistic Freedom Voucher 3. Awards 4. Funding Amalgamation 5. Donations 6. Service Business Model 7. Limited Copyright 8. Combinations Okay, I know I'm hopelessly idealistic to think that any of these could ever be implemented... but I'm still interested to hear any criticisms or comments...
That's a very interesting idea. Let me expand upon it (and see what other slashdotters think...):
In this scheme, the original IP (patent or copyright) request would include an estimate of the costs that went into generating the IP. Society would then agree on an acceptable profit margin (which might vary from industry to industry). The IP would be protected up until the costs had been recouped, and the profit margin had been reached. At this point, it would be judged that the company had made sufficient profit, and the IP would be released into public domain. In this system, companies do not make endless profits. Rather, each work is rewarded commensurate to the effort put into it.
Of course, this system seems easy to abuse. Any corporation could mis-represent the amount of work that went into a project. In fact, who would determine what employees had contributed to a project (and hence their salaries would need to be included in the calculation), and what employees had not? The logistics would be hellish.
A possible way to discourage inflation of this "desired profit margin" benchmark would be to require a licensing fee proportional to the requested final sum. One could even require the licensing agent to hand over a significant fraction of the desired profit sum (perhaps 10%), which would be held until such time that the desired profit margin had been reached. The interest accrued on this money would be used to fund the IP bureau (it would not be given back to the company). This temporary loss of capital (without even obtaining interest from it) would highly discourage companies from requesting ridiculous profit margins, since locking up money is bad for the bottom line. This would also allow fair prices to be set on works, and would discourage companies hoarding patents or taking out patents merely speculatively. Each patent would have a cost and expected profit associated with it. An author could set a reasonable cost for a book that took him one year to produce, perhaps 60,000$. The 6,000$ investment he would have to make would not greatly inconvenience him. The laws could also stipulate refunding of the held fraction if the IP holder wishes to immediately release the IP into the public domain. That way, IP holders would have to make realistic decisions about their works. If profits were not matching expectations, they could cut their losses.
In order to further encourage innovation by independents, these fees could be waived for sufficiently small profit requests. It could, for instance, be free for any request of 100,000$ or less, which would allow independent writers, musicians, programmers, etc. to achieve reasonable profits without investment. In fact, the system could be non-linear, as taxation systems are: for small expected profits, no fees would be required, however the proportional fee would grow as the desired profit grew. This would force companies to accurately predict what the expected profits would be, to accurately assign a value to a given piece of IP.
Comments?
There is also a principle in psychology called "dilution of responsibility." A group of people may collectively agree to something risky or immoral, even though each individual person disagrees with the decision, and would *never* act that way on their own. Essentially, each person feels that they are not uniquely responsible for the decision, and so are more prone to making decisions that are dangerous or rash (since they don't anticipate having to answer for the decision).
This phenomenon in some cases results in a large crowd of people watching a crime, and no one actually does anything (or even calls the cops) because everyone assumes that someone else is taking care of the problem. This is also why it is highly recommended, in an emergency, to not just say "help" but to single out a particular person, point at them, and ask *them* for help.
The same principle seems to be at work with IP law. Most people, if they really had to think about it, wouldn't support the status quo, but everyone somehow feels that it's someone else's problem.