I only wish we still had command line interpreters around. It was so nice when beginners could execute their instructions directly OR add them to a program. It made playing around and learning so much quicker.
Nearly all Lisp variants like Common Lisp and Scheme have this. PLT-Scheme is nice for beginners with the multi-os IDE, teach packs, and textbooks.
Scheme is also a good starter language. Especially PLT-Scheme (DrScheme, MzScheme, etc) which includes a set of teaching packages and texts that take a student from beginning to advanced. It also comes with a nice multi-os IDE with a built in help desk.
What are your thoughts on security through obscurity? Do you believe the technique works? In what ways do you think the closed nature of Windows prevents the corollary many eyes principle from being used? Do you have any ideas on how Windows could utilize the many eyes principle?
Um... Yes it is? Seriously now... Do you really believe software ISN'T information? Not to beg the question or anything here, but software is a set of instructions you send to a machine (computer) to aquire some result... These instructions are the INFORMATION you give to the computer so that it knows what to do.
Further, software is represented (typically) as a binary string, or large binary number. Can you argue that 10 is not information? How about 11001011011100001000? And along this train of thought, its a little odd that someone can claim they own the number 10110011111. Actually what I think copyright owners really want to say is that they own a particular interpretation of that number (for instance interpreting that number as encoded audio). I have to wonder, how is it that you enforce your 'ownership' of an interpretation? I can think of several ways, but none of them would be allowed in a country claiming to be the land of the free.
The traffic should be encrypted (making it difficult to detect if its VoIP or white noise) and preferably use a random high numbered port. If it isn't I would be seriously worried about your VoIP carrier and consider getting a different one.
Excepting, of course, that someone else could have borrowed the cd from the original owner without knowledge of any contractual agreement and would not be liable (IANAL) even if they they were to read the data off the disk and share it with everyone.
On the other hand the person who loaned them the cd is liable for the actions of the borrower. And since they (the person loaning) entered into an agreement to keep the information on the disk a secret they are now liable for damages as described in the agreement.
Sadly copyright agreements are not exactly like contractual agreements. Because of the way copyright law is written we are all already under an implied contract with all copyright holders to not copy their protected works. So both parties are liable for the damages (although, as I understand it, the loaner is more liable typically than the borrower since the loaner was given the legal warning via the label on the cd cover).
Welcome to the hell that is copyright law. Where you're obligated to not share information that you may or may not know that you are not supposed to share, but are liable for damages regardless... Fear is such a delightful tool.
Maybe the crackers are no longer as interested in wasting their time breaking into Windows.
If this post #13189088 is right then I'd say its a good sign that crackers are loosing interest...
If not because they have better things they could be doing (coding an open source project for instance), then because the raised difficulty for the average joe to get his Windows and his Office for free will decrease the number of people who get sucked into using Windows and increase the number who look for other alternatives.
The harder MS makes it to use their software the less people are going to want to jump through their hoops.
>>And which people who download the music are responsible for "the very low" number of times the artist SHOULD be paid.
Actually, the physical nature of music recordings themselves are what make the recording of music an enabling service. Your argument holds about as much water as a tub that blames gravity for the water leaking out of the holes in itself.
>>Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct
Second, its low to attack me personally by saying that I have a low valuation of an artist's work and its also low to blame me for a business model that logically doesn't work. You'll have a hard time convincing people that my argument is BS if you rely on these kinds of attacks.
>>EACH person who listens is finding value - not persons 1 through 100 of 25,000. Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct - why should the first 100 pay the whole tab when if all 25,000 chipped in they would all pay less? And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free?
Third, people pay for services. You buy shoes because they enable you to perform the service of protecting your feet. You don't pay the person who made your shoes everytime you use them. You pay them once for the service of making them.
>>Your arguments are predicated on your definitions of 'value' and 'work'. I don't agree with either. I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself.
Fourth, my arguments are based on premises of work and value. So are yours. I, on the other hand, have tried to make them clear. If your going to disagree with my premises its at least civil to mention why and to give some of your own. "I don't agree with either." is an empty callous statement.
>>And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free? If we don't let you, you're ripping it off. >>I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself.
Fifth, economics clearly says that both the supplier and buyer set the value of a service (Supply and Demand). You may firmly reject that all you want.
>>Good on ya! Don't pay - steal it - just don't try to justify the theft with BS.
Sixth, stealing a fact is simply not possible. A digital recording of music is a big, long integer. An integer is a fact. 2 is a fact. 3 is a fact. You can no more steal the first 10,000 digits of pi than you can steal the color blue.
>>Once again your arguments boil down to "I don't want to pay".
Finally, my argument clearly, and repeatedly, has been that people pay for services and is why the recording and distributing industry is failing. Not "I don't want to pay".
You obviously don't like the fact that you aren't getting compensated enough for performing in a recording studio. I suggest you don't perform in a recording studio unless you feel you are getting compensated enough for that. It is tragically ironic that you would be so angry about the amount of compensation you receive from that and your belief that you should be the sole person that sets the price on it.
A business model that you might try is to setup a website and paypal account where people who hear you perform (or hear poor quality recordings from public performances) and want a high quality version released can donate money to have it done. When you feel enough has been donated (probably best to tell them in advance how much that will be), then you go to the studio and get recorded.
That's funny;o} You mention the word work and how artists are somehow ripped off by the p2p crowd because they aren't getting paid for their work.
Its funny because work can be classified into two broad categories: enabling services and production services.
Enabling services are those that once you've performed them don't need to be done again and possibly allow other services (enabling or production) to be performed.
Think of the work involved in calculating the gravitational constant. Once its performed it doesn't need to be done again, but it allows for other services. In fact, there are so many I won't bother to list them here.
Then we have production services. These are the kind of services that must be done over and over.
For example the fabrication of a cpu is a production service (just the actual fabrication, the design of the cpu only needs to be done once allowing for the production of many cpus).
When you talk about the recording of an artist's works you are refering to an enabling service. Once an artist is recorded it doesn't need to be done again. On the other hand, when you talk about a live performance by an artist you are refering to a production service. It is a service that must be done again and again.
So when you talk about the p2p community ripping off the people who did pay for CD's you're simply confused. It is the recording & distributing industry that is ripping off the people who paid for CD's AND the artists. They over charge for the price of recording and distributing the music while skimping on paying the artists for the performance they have done.
People pay for services performed. In the case of an enabling service, there is a certain limit to the number of times it can be performed for compensation, which in the case of an artist's recording is very low. In the case of a production service, the limit on the times it can be done for compensation is typically pretty high.
An artist should take this to heart. Unless you can demand a very high price for performing your enabling service you may be better off doing a production service.
11. In a digital medium, music is just one big number, extremely easy to reproduce, exactly as it is, because it is a number. Before digital mediums this was not possible.
12. You cannot own a fact, not in the intellectual property sense or the physical sense of the word. You cannot own a number because it is a fact.
The intellectual property proponents are in what I like to call a fortified losing position. At one point they had a business model that was based on distribution and storage and now that model no longer works because distribution and storage have become far too easy and cheap. The whole IP discussion is ancillary to their current and future financial crisis. If they don't change their business model or manage to invade every aspect of your personal life in the name of IP (which has less to do with IP and more to do with monitoring and controlling you in ways most find offensive at best), then they will not maintain their entertainment cartel.
You can't use logic to rationalize religious idiology. Religion is not rational. It doesn't need logic. It needs FAITH: belief is something without evidence. Oh sure, you can 'rationalize' all you want about the nature of whatever religion you choose, but I can do the same thing about the Jabberwocky in Alice and Wonderland. Its not logical if your base assumptions are flawed. Its especially not logical if you blatently ignore this fact or deny it by saying 'just have faith'. So don't expect to much success when arguing about the flaws in someones religion. You can't argue with them if you don't accept their base assumptions and, if you value rational, logical arguments, you won't accept many of their base assumptions because they lack evidence.
The only successful arguments I've had about religion with religious people have centered on their base assumptions and the lack of any evidence behind them. Once you've reach the point in the argument where they say 'but you have to have faith', say bullox, and point out that a real argument requires a logical base. If they are smart they will quickly realize that they can't effectively ARGUE religious idiology.
At which point the really clever ones figure out that religion relies basically on the art of persuasion for the points where it lacks evidence. Watch out for 'arguments' in that nature.
As far as ethics go, what could be more EVIL and CORRUPT than someone who claims to be your shepard but insists you must abandon logic and reason so that he can save you from an unsubstantiated evil that convienetly resides within your self, can't be removed, and will lead to certain, undeniable corruption and eternal damnation?
That's true. Lots of people work in jobs they don't particularly love, but do it because it pays the bill and lets them do what they really want.
I also know people who love working with computers at the hardware and/or software level, but won't ever be at the top of their field. They'd be better off making money elsewhere. Just because you love something doesn't mean your going to be good at it.
DRM is an extension of a Copyright system that, fundamentally, cannot succeed in the digital realm. There's the implementation problems revolving around controlling copying rights (seriously, without massively invading the life of every human being, just how do you expect to enforce 'digital copying rights'?). Deeper than that, there is the problem revolving around what digital means.
It's a number folks. Seriously, it's a number. If you superficially grant someone copying rights over a number, then you'd better give them copying rights over them all.
Example: Digital copyrights are given to Bob over the number 1234. Bob retains all copying rights to the number 1234. Sue 'copies' 1234 when she puts 1000 + 234 on her website. Bob sues Sue for copyright infringement.
You can see where this is going? Sure it's a slippery slope, but it's a valid one. Why? Because if Bob can own the copyright to 1234, but can't sue Sue for having 1000 + 234, then copyright becomes trivial to circumvent.
To prevent this circumvention Bob will need to acquire the ability to sue Sue for putting any combination of numbers on her page that could be construed in any way to result in Bob's number 1234. Sure you can talk about intent and how Bob can only sue Sue if it can be shown that she intended to infringe on Bob's copyrights, but that can be difficult at best to show.
Anyways, IANAL, and this is just my musing on the digital copyright farce and its children DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to get sidetracked here, but Red Hat's Dan Walsh does NOT say '100% protection'... At least he doesn't in the article linked to.
Agreed!
I'm wondering what format the digital copies will be using... and which DRM they've crippled them with.
Scheme is also a good starter language. Especially PLT-Scheme (DrScheme, MzScheme, etc) which includes a set of teaching packages and texts that take a student from beginning to advanced. It also comes with a nice multi-os IDE with a built in help desk.
What are your thoughts on security through obscurity? Do you believe the technique works? In what ways do you think the closed nature of Windows prevents the corollary many eyes principle from being used? Do you have any ideas on how Windows could utilize the many eyes principle?
Um... Yes it is? Seriously now... Do you really believe software ISN'T information? Not to beg the question or anything here, but software is a set of instructions you send to a machine (computer) to aquire some result... These instructions are the INFORMATION you give to the computer so that it knows what to do.
Further, software is represented (typically) as a binary string, or large binary number. Can you argue that 10 is not information? How about 11001011011100001000? And along this train of thought, its a little odd that someone can claim they own the number 10110011111. Actually what I think copyright owners really want to say is that they own a particular interpretation of that number (for instance interpreting that number as encoded audio). I have to wonder, how is it that you enforce your 'ownership' of an interpretation? I can think of several ways, but none of them would be allowed in a country claiming to be the land of the free.
The traffic should be encrypted (making it difficult to detect if its VoIP or white noise) and preferably use a random high numbered port. If it isn't I would be seriously worried about your VoIP carrier and consider getting a different one.
Excepting, of course, that someone else could have borrowed the cd from the original owner without knowledge of any contractual agreement and would not be liable (IANAL) even if they they were to read the data off the disk and share it with everyone.
On the other hand the person who loaned them the cd is liable for the actions of the borrower. And since they (the person loaning) entered into an agreement to keep the information on the disk a secret they are now liable for damages as described in the agreement.
Sadly copyright agreements are not exactly like contractual agreements. Because of the way copyright law is written we are all already under an implied contract with all copyright holders to not copy their protected works. So both parties are liable for the damages (although, as I understand it, the loaner is more liable typically than the borrower since the loaner was given the legal warning via the label on the cd cover).
Welcome to the hell that is copyright law. Where you're obligated to not share information that you may or may not know that you are not supposed to share, but are liable for damages regardless... Fear is such a delightful tool.
IANAL nor have I ever been one.
Maybe the crackers are no longer as interested in wasting their time breaking into Windows.
If this post #13189088 is right then I'd say its a good sign that crackers are loosing interest...
If not because they have better things they could be doing (coding an open source project for instance), then because the raised difficulty for the average joe to get his Windows and his Office for free will decrease the number of people who get sucked into using Windows and increase the number who look for other alternatives.
The harder MS makes it to use their software the less people are going to want to jump through their hoops.
>>And which people who download the music are responsible for "the very low" number of times the artist SHOULD be paid.
Actually, the physical nature of music recordings themselves are what make the recording of music an enabling service. Your argument holds about as much water as a tub that blames gravity for the water leaking out of the holes in itself.
>>Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct
Second, its low to attack me personally by saying that I have a low valuation of an artist's work and its also low to blame me for a business model that logically doesn't work. You'll have a hard time convincing people that my argument is BS if you rely on these kinds of attacks.
>>EACH person who listens is finding value - not persons 1 through 100 of 25,000. Even if your low evaluation of my work is correct - why should the first 100 pay the whole tab when if all 25,000 chipped in they would all pay less? And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free?
Third, people pay for services. You buy shoes because they enable you to perform the service of protecting your feet. You don't pay the person who made your shoes everytime you use them. You pay them once for the service of making them.
>>Your arguments are predicated on your definitions of 'value' and 'work'. I don't agree with either. I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself.
Fourth, my arguments are based on premises of work and value. So are yours. I, on the other hand, have tried to make them clear. If your going to disagree with my premises its at least civil to mention why and to give some of your own. "I don't agree with either." is an empty callous statement.
>>And if 24,999 people are willing to pay, why should I, or they, be OK with letting you have it for free? If we don't let you, you're ripping it off.
>>I also reject your authority to determine 'limits' on 'compensation' for anyone but yourself.
Fifth, economics clearly says that both the supplier and buyer set the value of a service (Supply and Demand). You may firmly reject that all you want.
>>Good on ya! Don't pay - steal it - just don't try to justify the theft with BS.
Sixth, stealing a fact is simply not possible. A digital recording of music is a big, long integer. An integer is a fact. 2 is a fact. 3 is a fact. You can no more steal the first 10,000 digits of pi than you can steal the color blue.
>>Once again your arguments boil down to "I don't want to pay".
Finally, my argument clearly, and repeatedly, has been that people pay for services and is why the recording and distributing industry is failing. Not "I don't want to pay".
You obviously don't like the fact that you aren't getting compensated enough for performing in a recording studio. I suggest you don't perform in a recording studio unless you feel you are getting compensated enough for that. It is tragically ironic that you would be so angry about the amount of compensation you receive from that and your belief that you should be the sole person that sets the price on it.
A business model that you might try is to setup a website and paypal account where people who hear you perform (or hear poor quality recordings from public performances) and want a high quality version released can donate money to have it done. When you feel enough has been donated (probably best to tell them in advance how much that will be), then you go to the studio and get recorded.
PS Tell Billy that I believe he started himself.
You may be interested in the distributed large number database. Which as far as I can tell hasn't been implemented, but looks like fun.
That's funny ;o} You mention the word work and how artists are somehow ripped off by the p2p crowd because they aren't getting paid for their work.
Its funny because work can be classified into two broad categories: enabling services and production services.
Enabling services are those that once you've performed them don't need to be done again and possibly allow other services (enabling or production) to be performed.
Think of the work involved in calculating the gravitational constant. Once its performed it doesn't need to be done again, but it allows for other services. In fact, there are so many I won't bother to list them here.
Then we have production services. These are the kind of services that must be done over and over.
For example the fabrication of a cpu is a production service (just the actual fabrication, the design of the cpu only needs to be done once allowing for the production of many cpus).
When you talk about the recording of an artist's works you are refering to an enabling service. Once an artist is recorded it doesn't need to be done again. On the other hand, when you talk about a live performance by an artist you are refering to a production service. It is a service that must be done again and again.
So when you talk about the p2p community ripping off the people who did pay for CD's you're simply confused. It is the recording & distributing industry that is ripping off the people who paid for CD's AND the artists. They over charge for the price of recording and distributing the music while skimping on paying the artists for the performance they have done.
People pay for services performed. In the case of an enabling service, there is a certain limit to the number of times it can be performed for compensation, which in the case of an artist's recording is very low. In the case of a production service, the limit on the times it can be done for compensation is typically pretty high.
An artist should take this to heart. Unless you can demand a very high price for performing your enabling service you may be better off doing a production service.
11. In a digital medium, music is just one big number, extremely easy to reproduce, exactly as it is, because it is a number. Before digital mediums this was not possible.
12. You cannot own a fact, not in the intellectual property sense or the physical sense of the word. You cannot own a number because it is a fact.
The intellectual property proponents are in what I like to call a fortified losing position. At one point they had a business model that was based on distribution and storage and now that model no longer works because distribution and storage have become far too easy and cheap. The whole IP discussion is ancillary to their current and future financial crisis. If they don't change their business model or manage to invade every aspect of your personal life in the name of IP (which has less to do with IP and more to do with monitoring and controlling you in ways most find offensive at best), then they will not maintain their entertainment cartel.
You can't use logic to rationalize religious idiology. Religion is not rational. It doesn't need logic. It needs FAITH: belief is something without evidence. Oh sure, you can 'rationalize' all you want about the nature of whatever religion you choose, but I can do the same thing about the Jabberwocky in Alice and Wonderland. Its not logical if your base assumptions are flawed. Its especially not logical if you blatently ignore this fact or deny it by saying 'just have faith'. So don't expect to much success when arguing about the flaws in someones religion. You can't argue with them if you don't accept their base assumptions and, if you value rational, logical arguments, you won't accept many of their base assumptions because they lack evidence.
The only successful arguments I've had about religion with religious people have centered on their base assumptions and the lack of any evidence behind them. Once you've reach the point in the argument where they say 'but you have to have faith', say bullox, and point out that a real argument requires a logical base. If they are smart they will quickly realize that they can't effectively ARGUE religious idiology.
At which point the really clever ones figure out that religion relies basically on the art of persuasion for the points where it lacks evidence. Watch out for 'arguments' in that nature.
As far as ethics go, what could be more EVIL and CORRUPT than someone who claims to be your shepard but insists you must abandon logic and reason so that he can save you from an unsubstantiated evil that convienetly resides within your self, can't be removed, and will lead to certain, undeniable corruption and eternal damnation?
That's true. Lots of people work in jobs they don't particularly love, but do it because it pays the bill and lets them do what they really want.
I also know people who love working with computers at the hardware and/or software level, but won't ever be at the top of their field. They'd be better off making money elsewhere. Just because you love something doesn't mean your going to be good at it.
Accepting DRM isn't an option.
DRM is an extension of a Copyright system that, fundamentally, cannot succeed in the digital realm. There's the implementation problems revolving around controlling copying rights (seriously, without massively invading the life of every human being, just how do you expect to enforce 'digital copying rights'?). Deeper than that, there is the problem revolving around what digital means.
It's a number folks. Seriously, it's a number. If you superficially grant someone copying rights over a number, then you'd better give them copying rights over them all.
Example: Digital copyrights are given to Bob over the number 1234. Bob retains all copying rights to the number 1234. Sue 'copies' 1234 when she puts 1000 + 234 on her website. Bob sues Sue for copyright infringement.
You can see where this is going? Sure it's a slippery slope, but it's a valid one. Why? Because if Bob can own the copyright to 1234, but can't sue Sue for having 1000 + 234, then copyright becomes trivial to circumvent.
To prevent this circumvention Bob will need to acquire the ability to sue Sue for putting any combination of numbers on her page that could be construed in any way to result in Bob's number 1234. Sure you can talk about intent and how Bob can only sue Sue if it can be shown that she intended to infringe on Bob's copyrights, but that can be difficult at best to show.
Anyways, IANAL, and this is just my musing on the digital copyright farce and its children DRM.