The GPL prevents this by saying that while you can use something, it has to be available to enrich future generation in the same way. And it's not enough that the original is available, the work is seen as a living entity, always changing to remain relevant.
OK, this is a better argument for GPL-as-free-speech than I was able to extract from the GNU editorials. I will concede that I can see how extensive use of the GPL would help provide a large base of source code which people could work from. I'm not entirely sure you can call this supporting "free speech" - while not having extensive free source code available does make it harder to implement large projects, it doesn't necessarily prevent such projects from being implemented. So the GPL only makes it easier to do such projects, it doesn't make it possible where it was impossible.
In the interests of fairness, I will however point out a situation where the GPL _does_ make the impossible possible: extensive use of the GPL would make it a lot easier to find prior art to kill some of the really stupid software patents being granted by the USPTO (the more GPLed software there is, the more likely it is that you will find some GPLed project which implements the function which someone attempted to patent). So, in the situation where some company tries to shut down a free software project using patents, having a large body of source code under GPL would provide a source of easily-searchable prior art which could protect those projects. I will concede that this is a "free speech" use.
At this point in time, however, I haven't really heard much use of the GPL in this instance. I've heard a lot about how the GPL forces software to be cheap/free. So, I am still inclined to think of the GPL as primarily a free-as-in-beer license, rather than primarily as a free-as-in-speech license.
I don't see anything in your response that indicates we are disagreeing; I just don't agree with the GNU foundation's stance that the GPL is about free speech, since the GPL _does_ prevent you from redistributing the software if you do not meet its requirements.
The overall effect of the GPL is to encourage free software (not free service, as you noted, but free software - as in "beer").
No, I said exactly what I wanted to say. I said what I see - and I see the GPL encouraging free (as in beer) software, and the public-domain encouraging freedom (as in speech - no restrictions on use or distribution).
I know the GNU folks have a propaganda page saying the reverse, but I don't think they are correct - free speech may have been what they _intended_, but it's not what ended up happening.
I stand by my statements, and disagree with the GNU statement. That might be what they _intended_, but I don't think that's what happened.
I say what I see - and I see the GPL encouraging free (as in beer) software, and the public-domain encouraging freedom (as in speech - no restrictions on use or distribution).
Gah...why does everyone assume that THEIR meaning for "free" is better than anyone else's?
GPL is "free" as in free beer - its use encourages the distribution of free software. Public domain is "free" as in free speech - no restrictions on how individuals can distribute it. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do people get into arguments about this?!
Maybe there should be a requirement that no debate about which license is more "free" can be allowed to go ahead until the participants have agreed on which definition of "free" they are using. OTOH, maybe that would make things too boring.
Another large portion of the population was unwilling to fight for either side or would only support the army that was in their backyard at the time.
I would hazard a guess that this would probably apply to the bulk of any population, at any time, in any place. In other words, the leave-me-the-f*ck-alone-and-let-me-live-my-life political party.
Unfortunately, these are the people who usually get screwed over big-time when the other partisans start shooting at each other.
Fair use protects your right for YOU to make a backup. It does not give you the right to procure another copy from someone else after your primary copy is damaged or destroyed.
Huh? Why not? He paid for the license to listen to the music, didn't he? He might have to keep the original mangled piece of plastic around (hopefully before it has been processed by the dog) though...
I'm sorry but if the "profeessionals" don't trust parents to teach reading, writing, and math to their own children I'm supprised they trust parents to teach children to talk or use the toilet.
People can teach other people what they're good at, or what they have been trained to teach. Most parents aren't good at most of the higher-level stuff that is taught in the upper-level grades of schools. And yes, that "upper-level stuff", while not needed by burger-flippers or janitors, _does_ turn out to be useful for a lot of decent jobs.
For that matter without professional educators I'm supprised we were able to last as long as we did, the lions and wolves should have gotten us long ago.
That's a stupid statement - it hardly takes extensive education to pass on basic survival skills. If you want to make your point, please point out any historical "advanced" cultures which did not have some kind of organized teaching system. I highly doubt you will be able to think of any.
I really don't know where the educator community gets off implying that you have to have an education degree in order to be able to effectively instruct your own children.
It probably has something to do with the fact that most people who don't have some kind of training for educating kids usually turn out to be incompetent at educating kids. There are exceptions, but rare ones.
The idea of 3 more years of school might turn you off, but for the out-of-work CompSci degree holders, law school might be a great choice. The world needs lawyers who intimately understand technology to be able to try these cases, and those lawyers need to go on to become the judges who preside over such cases. Without such people in the legal system, we will keep seeing ridiculous judgements.
Ack--no! The last thing we need in the U.S. is _more_ lawyers.
What we really need in the U.S. is to _decrease_ the demand for lawyers, by greatly simplifying the legal system toward "common sense" (and then making it really hard for the legislators to add back complexity).
Fat chance of that happening, as long as most of the people in charge are lawyers, however.
With this kind of surveilance you are teaching them that it's ok to have your privacy violated.
Actually, if typical kids are anything like what _I_ remember in high school,. it will train kids on how to recognize surveillance & encourage their creativity on how secretly, cleverly & thoroughly they can destroy said surveillance devices. Couple that with a unhealthy hostility toward authority when students are punished regularly for such activities, and you're going to end up with a generation just primed to explode against authority.
Of course, you probably won't get much learning done, but the power-that-be don't really want the hoi polloi to be educated, anyway--good education makes people too willing to ask inconvenient questions.
Gah...I assume you're talking about home schooling.
My mother is a elementary school teacher for learning-disabled kids, and she spends a fair amount of her time helping kids who have been damaged by "home-schooling". It's really pathetic how many completely-untrained parents think they can teach better than someone who has trained & gained experience for years.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has successfully made it out of home schooling to be a well-adjusted adult was either really lucky and had parents who knew how to teach (properly), or has such an inherent strength of character from very young to be able grow despite their parents. Of course, this doesn't count the number of home-schooled adults who only think they are well-adjusted (partly due to poorly-implemented self-esteem programs blindly pushed by their incompetent parents), but are in reality total losers.
It's even more pathetic when those same idi--I mean, parents, come strutting back into the school with their illiterate, ill-behaved/socially-maladjusted brats & demanding that the teachers "fix" them immediately, without acknowledging that the majority of the problems were _caused_ by those same "parents".
I sure wish there were some objective way to measure people's fitness for parenthood _before_ anybody got pregnant. Not only would kids be more loved, but I bet the global population would be a lot smaller, and a lot of the "asshole" genes would get weeded out of the human race.
As I'm sure other people are already tired of pointing out, the parties in this article _did_ have an escrow agreement. Unfortunately, it seems that the Appgen folks hadn't actually been honoring it.
So you'll have to type su/sudo first, and then your root password.
Actually, I believe that the sudo command requires the current user's password, not the root password. So the users don't need to know the root password (sudo would be kind of useless as an access-control command if any users allowed to use it knew the root password). Which users & what commands they are allowed to run is defined by the configuration file.
Oh come on now, it's perfectly possible that 43% of Americans have been abducted by UFOs. It would certainly explain the way a lot of them behave. (Yes, I am an American citizen - presumably one of the non-abducted ones.)
Hmmm, maybe I got the brain part name incorrect - when they pop the skull, the top part of the brain is gone & replaced with a flat area & a chip. Maybe I was thinking of the cortex (the outer-layer wrinkly part)?
water stored at high pressure a more efficient way to store and transfer electricity than chemical batteries
Well, if the required pressure isn't too high, wouldn't "storing water at high pressure" be as simple as putting a couple of these glass blocks at the bottom of a water tank? The water's own weight would provide quite a bit of pressure at the bottom of the tank, and if there were some natural process refilling the tank (rain?), it might be considered pretty easy energy.
Then it's only a matter of time before there are "humans" walking around who have finally abandoned the last vestiges of organic matter inside their skulls.
Obligatory anime reference: Battle Angel Alita, where the "elite" citizens of Typhus actually have openable skulls with a little chip that has replaced their cerebellum. Amusingly enough, most of these citizens don't know it (and are really horrified when they find out).
i personally don't think AI will ever be more intelligent than humans. there's a limiting factor in building AI and that's the human brain. though it might be as intelligent, it will never be moreso.
I disagree with you most strongly. Humans don't need to replicate the complexity of the human brian. All the humans have to do is figure out how to build an AI which can learn and grow. At that point, it will be just a matter of time before humans can't deny that their machines have become more "intelligent" than they are.
i personally don't think AI will ever be more intelligent than humans. there's a limiting factor in building AI and that's the human brain. though it might be as intelligent, it will never be moreso.
Many white Americans felt that slaves were not really full humans, and thought it laughable that they should receive full protection of the law. I doubt that most Americans feel that way anymore.
Similarly, if AIs act intelligent/emotionally enough so that humans feel like they can have relationships with those AIs, then don't you think there will be a movement to grant AIs the rights "inherent to any sentient being"?
Am I the only person who immediately these robots would've been great to use in such a show?
Of course, you might get objections from the companies that spend hundreds of millions on research to build these things (and from the guys who can't build the same things in their garages...)
And the survivors went home & told the rest of the humans what had happened, who then pulled out all their old war manuals (which they had hoped they would be able to get rid of), and proceeded to show the Kzinti that (unfortunately) humans can do _really well_ at war, partly because they've had so much practice. (Unlike the Kzinti, who tended to subscribe to the "scream and pounce" philosophy of war.)
I think the honor code at Caltech was more a reflection of the students' will than something that would work anywhere. I saw one person get "shunned" after they got caught cheating - it was pretty harsh, even people who had been fairly close friends turned their backs on him, and that person transferred out of Caltech as soon as they could.
I have horrible memories of the open-book, unlimited-time, no-discussion take-home tests (unlimited time as long as you did them all in one session). Everytime we got one of those tests, I knew I was going to be in hell because the professors felt comfortable with assigning the biggest, PITA problems they could think of (hey, unlimited-time, right?). I would spend 12+ hours straight locked in my room working each one of those damn tests, and absolutely refusing to do anything else (except for going to the bathroom & drinking water & eating snacks, but not sleeping) until I had finished the test, all because you were supposed to finish it one session (and if you didn't, the honor code said that you had to turn it in incomplete).
The honor code (and its strict application) was the only reason that professors felt like they could give tests like that and take for granted that people wouldn't be telling each other the answers. I don't think it would work so well at a school where the students weren't so adamant about maintaining the honor code though.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, this is a better argument for GPL-as-free-speech than I was able to extract from the GNU editorials. I will concede that I can see how extensive use of the GPL would help provide a large base of source code which people could work from. I'm not entirely sure you can call this supporting "free speech" - while not having extensive free source code available does make it harder to implement large projects, it doesn't necessarily prevent such projects from being implemented. So the GPL only makes it easier to do such projects, it doesn't make it possible where it was impossible.
In the interests of fairness, I will however point out a situation where the GPL _does_ make the impossible possible: extensive use of the GPL would make it a lot easier to find prior art to kill some of the really stupid software patents being granted by the USPTO (the more GPLed software there is, the more likely it is that you will find some GPLed project which implements the function which someone attempted to patent). So, in the situation where some company tries to shut down a free software project using patents, having a large body of source code under GPL would provide a source of easily-searchable prior art which could protect those projects. I will concede that this is a "free speech" use.
At this point in time, however, I haven't really heard much use of the GPL in this instance. I've heard a lot about how the GPL forces software to be cheap/free. So, I am still inclined to think of the GPL as primarily a free-as-in-beer license, rather than primarily as a free-as-in-speech license.
I don't see anything in your response that indicates we are disagreeing; I just don't agree with the GNU foundation's stance that the GPL is about free speech, since the GPL _does_ prevent you from redistributing the software if you do not meet its requirements.
The overall effect of the GPL is to encourage free software (not free service, as you noted, but free software - as in "beer").
No, I said exactly what I wanted to say. I said what I see - and I see the GPL encouraging free (as in beer) software, and the public-domain encouraging freedom (as in speech - no restrictions on use or distribution).
I know the GNU folks have a propaganda page saying the reverse, but I don't think they are correct - free speech may have been what they _intended_, but it's not what ended up happening.
I stand by my statements, and disagree with the GNU statement. That might be what they _intended_, but I don't think that's what happened.
I say what I see - and I see the GPL encouraging free (as in beer) software, and the public-domain encouraging freedom (as in speech - no restrictions on use or distribution).
Gah...why does everyone assume that THEIR meaning for "free" is better than anyone else's?
GPL is "free" as in free beer - its use encourages the distribution of free software. Public domain is "free" as in free speech - no restrictions on how individuals can distribute it. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do people get into arguments about this?!
Maybe there should be a requirement that no debate about which license is more "free" can be allowed to go ahead until the participants have agreed on which definition of "free" they are using. OTOH, maybe that would make things too boring.
I would hazard a guess that this would probably apply to the bulk of any population, at any time, in any place. In other words, the leave-me-the-f*ck-alone-and-let-me-live-my-life political party.
Unfortunately, these are the people who usually get screwed over big-time when the other partisans start shooting at each other.
Huh? Why not? He paid for the license to listen to the music, didn't he? He might have to keep the original mangled piece of plastic around (hopefully before it has been processed by the dog) though...
People can teach other people what they're good at, or what they have been trained to teach. Most parents aren't good at most of the higher-level stuff that is taught in the upper-level grades of schools. And yes, that "upper-level stuff", while not needed by burger-flippers or janitors, _does_ turn out to be useful for a lot of decent jobs.
That's a stupid statement - it hardly takes extensive education to pass on basic survival skills. If you want to make your point, please point out any historical "advanced" cultures which did not have some kind of organized teaching system. I highly doubt you will be able to think of any.
It probably has something to do with the fact that most people who don't have some kind of training for educating kids usually turn out to be incompetent at educating kids. There are exceptions, but rare ones.
Ack--no! The last thing we need in the U.S. is _more_ lawyers.
What we really need in the U.S. is to _decrease_ the demand for lawyers, by greatly simplifying the legal system toward "common sense" (and then making it really hard for the legislators to add back complexity).
Fat chance of that happening, as long as most of the people in charge are lawyers, however.
Actually, if typical kids are anything like what _I_ remember in high school,. it will train kids on how to recognize surveillance & encourage their creativity on how secretly, cleverly & thoroughly they can destroy said surveillance devices. Couple that with a unhealthy hostility toward authority when students are punished regularly for such activities, and you're going to end up with a generation just primed to explode against authority.
Of course, you probably won't get much learning done, but the power-that-be don't really want the hoi polloi to be educated, anyway--good education makes people too willing to ask inconvenient questions.
Gah...I assume you're talking about home schooling.
My mother is a elementary school teacher for learning-disabled kids, and she spends a fair amount of her time helping kids who have been damaged by "home-schooling". It's really pathetic how many completely-untrained parents think they can teach better than someone who has trained & gained experience for years.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has successfully made it out of home schooling to be a well-adjusted adult was either really lucky and had parents who knew how to teach (properly), or has such an inherent strength of character from very young to be able grow despite their parents. Of course, this doesn't count the number of home-schooled adults who only think they are well-adjusted (partly due to poorly-implemented self-esteem programs blindly pushed by their incompetent parents), but are in reality total losers.
It's even more pathetic when those same idi--I mean, parents, come strutting back into the school with their illiterate, ill-behaved/socially-maladjusted brats & demanding that the teachers "fix" them immediately, without acknowledging that the majority of the problems were _caused_ by those same "parents".
I sure wish there were some objective way to measure people's fitness for parenthood _before_ anybody got pregnant. Not only would kids be more loved, but I bet the global population would be a lot smaller, and a lot of the "asshole" genes would get weeded out of the human race.
As I'm sure other people are already tired of pointing out, the parties in this article _did_ have an escrow agreement. Unfortunately, it seems that the Appgen folks hadn't actually been honoring it.
Actually, I believe that the sudo command requires the current user's password, not the root password. So the users don't need to know the root password (sudo would be kind of useless as an access-control command if any users allowed to use it knew the root password). Which users & what commands they are allowed to run is defined by the configuration file.
Oh come on now, it's perfectly possible that 43% of Americans have been abducted by UFOs. It would certainly explain the way a lot of them behave. (Yes, I am an American citizen - presumably one of the non-abducted ones.)
Hmmm, maybe I got the brain part name incorrect - when they pop the skull, the top part of the brain is gone & replaced with a flat area & a chip. Maybe I was thinking of the cortex (the outer-layer wrinkly part)?
Well, if the required pressure isn't too high, wouldn't "storing water at high pressure" be as simple as putting a couple of these glass blocks at the bottom of a water tank? The water's own weight would provide quite a bit of pressure at the bottom of the tank, and if there were some natural process refilling the tank (rain?), it might be considered pretty easy energy.
Obligatory anime reference: Battle Angel Alita, where the "elite" citizens of Typhus actually have openable skulls with a little chip that has replaced their cerebellum. Amusingly enough, most of these citizens don't know it (and are really horrified when they find out).
I disagree with you most strongly. Humans don't need to replicate the complexity of the human brian. All the humans have to do is figure out how to build an AI which can learn and grow. At that point, it will be just a matter of time before humans can't deny that their machines have become more "intelligent" than they are.
Many white Americans felt that slaves were not really full humans, and thought it laughable that they should receive full protection of the law. I doubt that most Americans feel that way anymore.
Similarly, if AIs act intelligent/emotionally enough so that humans feel like they can have relationships with those AIs, then don't you think there will be a movement to grant AIs the rights "inherent to any sentient being"?
So, will this lawyer take similar business from anybody else, or does he know anybody else willing to do this for other people?
Really? Where does the law say that? And how do the telemarketers tell?
Am I the only person who immediately these robots would've been great to use in such a show?
Of course, you might get objections from the companies that spend hundreds of millions on research to build these things (and from the guys who can't build the same things in their garages...)
And the survivors went home & told the rest of the humans what had happened, who then pulled out all their old war manuals (which they had hoped they would be able to get rid of), and proceeded to show the Kzinti that (unfortunately) humans can do _really well_ at war, partly because they've had so much practice. (Unlike the Kzinti, who tended to subscribe to the "scream and pounce" philosophy of war.)
Geek? No geeks here!
I think the honor code at Caltech was more a reflection of the students' will than something that would work anywhere. I saw one person get "shunned" after they got caught cheating - it was pretty harsh, even people who had been fairly close friends turned their backs on him, and that person transferred out of Caltech as soon as they could.
I have horrible memories of the open-book, unlimited-time, no-discussion take-home tests (unlimited time as long as you did them all in one session). Everytime we got one of those tests, I knew I was going to be in hell because the professors felt comfortable with assigning the biggest, PITA problems they could think of (hey, unlimited-time, right?). I would spend 12+ hours straight locked in my room working each one of those damn tests, and absolutely refusing to do anything else (except for going to the bathroom & drinking water & eating snacks, but not sleeping) until I had finished the test, all because you were supposed to finish it one session (and if you didn't, the honor code said that you had to turn it in incomplete).
The honor code (and its strict application) was the only reason that professors felt like they could give tests like that and take for granted that people wouldn't be telling each other the answers. I don't think it would work so well at a school where the students weren't so adamant about maintaining the honor code though.
Impaled on stakes ala Vlad?