I think the best Special Edition commentary can be found on Penny Arcade. I think for those of us who loved the original series it sums up what we think of Lucas's 'improvements' pretty well.
You are correct that if you own a gun, it is more likely to injure a family member than a criminal (at least on average). What it interesting though is that allowing non-criminals to have guns reduces crime rates in general. Thus, it is in your interest to be allowed to have guns, but not in your interest to actually own one.
It's hard to say what should be inherent in the OS and what shouldn't. However, most forms of computer security should be inherent to the OS and not part of some third-party solution. For instance, I want my OS to be resistant to running arbitrary code and be able to give me control over and info about programs and processess are running on my computer. If I have to get third party support to do those things the OS is failing me.
Shouldn't you be hoing for a surplus? A shortage means that they are selling all the PS3's that they are making. While they are technically losing money on each unit sold, they lose even more on each unit that doesn't sell. If there is a surplus of PS3s, that would be a deathblow to Sony's counsole dreams.
Claiming to have a privacy policy increases business (and profits) while actually respecting privacy is expensive (especially when you consider how much personal information can be worth). Because of this, most companies will share their data with "Business Partners"- and if you share your data with 10 other companies, odds are they won't all have privacy standards as high as you.
Another problem mentioned in the article is when a company goes out of business, they no longer have any financial incentive to keep your records private- it's not like they will lose your business if you find out. While this is illegal (now) if it violates their privacy policy, there can still be strong financial incentives to sell personal data.
Of course, what the article doesn't mention is that many web companies have "privacy policies" that bascially say "anything you tell us may be used against you- we have the right to sell or reveal your personal information in any way we feel like". Once you give information to them, everyone can find out about it.
Yes, it's true that the difference in escape velocities between a mountain top and sea level is only about 0.05%- a trivial difference. Getting a mile head start on leaving the atmosphere helps a lot, though.
No, escape velocity is dependent on distance from the Earth. Remember that gravity gets weaker the further you are away from its source.
It is slightly easier to escape from the equator than it is at the pole, so you are right that the Andes would be one of the best places to put a space elevator (or just a launch pad).
The only people who should have your SSN are your employer, the government, and your bank(s). AT&T shouldn't have anyone's SSN except its own employees.
It does not look like this technique will be useful against AIDS. Though the article is sparse on details, it says the treatment targets specific antigens that appear in about half of cancer types. The problem with AIDS is that it mutates rapidly, and this means that the antigens on its surface change with time. As a result, even if we could modify one patient's cells to kill Alice's AIDS, we would need a different set of modifications to kill Bob's AIDS.
Obviously some games will support Dynamic Advertising better than others. Even the Article talks about doing this for sports simulations- racing, basketball, etc.- where such a thing would fit in. I am worried about this advertising in Battlefield 2142- It might be really disturbing to see XBox ads in advanced battlefields. Of course, with some humor it might be good-
Get the New HBox! Fully supports the latest HD-Holofield Technology!
Drink Pepsi- Official Drink of the Alpha Centauri Reasearch Station!
McDonalds- Proud Sponsor of the 2142 Olympic Games!
Basically I think you have difficulty accepting that you can be a nice guy without being entirely selfless. Let's take "Fred" for example- a fictional nice guy. Fred has found out that if he is nice and polite to people, they are usually nice and polite to him. Thus, Fred's politeness is also in Fred's self-interest. Now, let's say that you knew that Fred was a nice guy- and then found out that he actually expects other people to be nice in return! Would that lower your opinion of Fred? If so, how much?
Also, different programs are released for free or open-source for various reasons. Since many people may contribute together for one project, each person might have different reasons for joining. Some might do it for the prestige. Others might do it as a learning experience. Some do it as a political statement. Some do it for efficiency. Some do it for business reasons- either to build name recognition or as a means of getting cheap software for themselves (for instance, it might be cheaper for a large group of companies to each send $10 per employee to fund Open Office and use that, than to pay $50/employee for MS Office). Some people do open source for the hippy free-love and software thing.
Another point... let's take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Here we have people trying to make the world a better place. And, of course, they have their names attached to it. You could argue that Bill Gates is just trying to go down in history as the greatest philanthropist ever... but I would argue that that just makes him an arrogant generous person. I would think anyone criticizing them because they wanted their name on the Foundation to be a wee bit self-righteous.
Also, what you may be missing is that all software comes with strings attached. Open Source software also needs those strings if you don't want other people stealing your work and claiming it as their own product.
Lastly... How many books have you read by "Anonymous". Do you know of any paintings by an unknown artist (Graffiti doesn't count). Do you know of any advances in Science or Mathematics where the inventor/discover didn't want anyrecognition? (Try "Primary Colors" and Gregory Perelman, but these are huge exceptions to the rule). Why do you think Free Software should be different?
I'm actually trying to make a few points with this. First, just because some people do the right thing for selfish reasons doesn't mean everyone doing the right thing is doing it for selfish reasons. Second, if we can get people to do the right thing for selfish reasons, that's probably a good thing. Third, just because people get some small benefit from helping others, that doesn't change that they are being helpful. Lastly, people want credit for their work, free or not.
You know, I don't really know where you're coming from.
You like free software and use it, but you:
1. Are uncomfortable with people getting anything out of making free software,
2. Feel that Free Software one created isn't worth including in a resume.
Conclusion: You think Free software has no value, but use it anyway.
You feel that people shouldn't get recognition for writing free software, but feel that they should get recognition (and money) for writing commercial software.
Conclusion: You think Free Software is worthless.
As far as I can tell, you seem to think that because it's free, it has no value. Yet you apparently use and appreciate free software? How does one reconcile these two things?
You've compared giving away software to donating to charity, and I would have to agree. You claim that needing recognition for charity is lame, and I could agree with that, too. But you seem to be saying that "Well, if charity was illegal, it wouldn't matter- you would just have to give money to charity secretly." That's where everyone starts to get annoyed with you. Don't you think that if donating to the Red Cross was illegal, that it would quickly fail as a charity? In the same way huge open source projects like Open Office, Firefox, and most Linux distros would quickly fall apart if they became illegal to distribute. Corporate support would vanish instantly- Corporations have to keep track of where the money goes. Furthermore, finding free software would be much more difficult, and you couldn't trust that what you found wasn't secretly malware.
Also, Stop complaining that free software writers are 'getting something from their work'- it's like complaining that teachers are paid money for teaching kids. I'm sure you've known teachers who could be making a lot more money in industry than they were in a classroom, and complaing that they are 'getting something from their work' because they make a salary is both offensive to them and incredibly short-sighted on your part.
For another example, take an artist who decides to beautify his city with murals, and do this for free. If he signed his name at the bottom right corner of the murals, does that mean that the artist is just doing it for recognition, and that his generous donation fo time and supplies is just self-seeking?
Look, why should you care why people write free software? You are obviously benefiting from their software, so encourages free software by letting people sing their name to there work is good, right? Besides, building up a reputation as a programmer is very important to a lot of people for more than just ego. Having software out there with your name on it lets employers know what you can do and have done. I'm sure you keep track of what you've done on your resume somewhere, right?
Also, people should have the right to distribute their own works in whatever way they want. They should have just as much of a right to give their works away with their name attached as to sell their works to a company for money. Don't start acting self-righteous about people who just want to put their own name on their work, Mr. "I sign my name to the end of all my comments."
Yes, you're correct- let's all ignore IP laws, and just be careful to do so anonymously so that we can't get in trouble. Who cares what laws they pass, we'll just ignore them anyway. Of course, if you're going to run illegal software, why bother with Open Source when you can just pirate the latest Microsoft software?
We've discussed this with you in the past, Steve- Open Source is worthless if it isn't legal and doesn't credit the inventor. For one thing, many Open Source products come from or are supported by companies that would not participate in illegal activity. For another, most people want to take credit for the work they have done. For a third, laws that illegalize good behavior make criminals out of good people.
Look, I despise the RIAA as much as the next Slashdotter, but I can't fault the Judge's logic in this case. The Judge requested evidence, the woman destroyed the evidence, and I don't think that anyone here even has 'reasonable doubt' that the woman wasn't pulling songs off BearShare. If I were the Judge I would find her guilty as well.
He is correct that Spain is not the poorest western European country. However, I do find it amusing that the only thing he complains about in your comment is the one thing that has no relevance to your argument.
"Journey to the Ants" covers much of this information, including that Odontomachus species have the fastest neural reflex arc known- the time between when their mouth hairs touch something and they start biting it is something like.13 milliseconds. Moral of the story- don't stick your finger in their mouth, you will get bitten.
It's one of those things where they are trying to get patents on borderline computer programs- things that some people consider computer programs and some don't. If that succeeds, they can keep trying to patent things which are more and more obviously software, but if they have precedent they can probably get such things patented- until software patenting becomes legal. That's kinda how it happened in the U.S.- software wasn't patentable until 1989, but someone pointed out that you could patent a computer chip that had a program hard-coded into it, but you couldn't patent the same program in software, and managed to get the courts to allow software patents.
No, the EU doesn't care whether or not a computer program is 'novel' or 'non-obvious'- the EU just forbids software patents, algorithms, and most other mathematical constucts from being patented. For instance, if Andrew Wiles wanted to Patent Fermat's Last Theorem he couldn't- not because it's obvious (it took mathematicians 350+ years to solve), but because it's a mathematical proof.
Who are we at war with, exactly? Iraq? Afganistan? Lebanon? No, we're at war with "Terror"- a war which will never end as long as there are people willing to kill innocents to make a statement. Does this give the President unlimited Authority? Also, the President in is charge of the Army and Navy, yes, but is the Army wiretapping your house? Is the Navy Monitoring you Internet connection? Even if they were, if the president told the Army to go to your mother's house and throw grenades into the basement until you stopped posting on Slashdot, would that be legal?
I would like to think you are being sarcastic and not a moron- but if so, you really need to work on your delivery.
Actually, you are not the first to think of something similar to this. However, usually the theory is not that enjoyment causes skill to increase faster- usually the theory is that people pratice what they enjoy more than they practice what they don't. For instance, let's say that you're the best student in your 2nd grade math class (we'll assume from innate talent). Now let's say there are other students, John (who is average at math) and Joe (who is the worst at math). You will probably equate math with being fun- you get positive feedback for it, and you'll get a minor ego boost every time you do well. Joe, meanwhile, will probably try to avoid math because he feels like a failure and an idiot whenever he gets his tests back. Naturally you will do more math-realted activities than Joe or John, and you will get better at it at an improved rate.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the best Special Edition commentary can be found on Penny Arcade. I think for those of us who loved the original series it sums up what we think of Lucas's 'improvements' pretty well.
I for one welcome our Bionic Commando Overlords!
You are correct that if you own a gun, it is more likely to injure a family member than a criminal (at least on average). What it interesting though is that allowing non-criminals to have guns reduces crime rates in general. Thus, it is in your interest to be allowed to have guns, but not in your interest to actually own one.
It's hard to say what should be inherent in the OS and what shouldn't. However, most forms of computer security should be inherent to the OS and not part of some third-party solution. For instance, I want my OS to be resistant to running arbitrary code and be able to give me control over and info about programs and processess are running on my computer. If I have to get third party support to do those things the OS is failing me.
Shouldn't you be hoing for a surplus? A shortage means that they are selling all the PS3's that they are making. While they are technically losing money on each unit sold, they lose even more on each unit that doesn't sell. If there is a surplus of PS3s, that would be a deathblow to Sony's counsole dreams.
Claiming to have a privacy policy increases business (and profits) while actually respecting privacy is expensive (especially when you consider how much personal information can be worth). Because of this, most companies will share their data with "Business Partners"- and if you share your data with 10 other companies, odds are they won't all have privacy standards as high as you.
Another problem mentioned in the article is when a company goes out of business, they no longer have any financial incentive to keep your records private- it's not like they will lose your business if you find out. While this is illegal (now) if it violates their privacy policy, there can still be strong financial incentives to sell personal data.
Of course, what the article doesn't mention is that many web companies have "privacy policies" that bascially say "anything you tell us may be used against you- we have the right to sell or reveal your personal information in any way we feel like". Once you give information to them, everyone can find out about it.
Yes, it's true that the difference in escape velocities between a mountain top and sea level is only about 0.05%- a trivial difference. Getting a mile head start on leaving the atmosphere helps a lot, though.
No, escape velocity is dependent on distance from the Earth. Remember that gravity gets weaker the further you are away from its source. It is slightly easier to escape from the equator than it is at the pole, so you are right that the Andes would be one of the best places to put a space elevator (or just a launch pad).
I realized schools will need your SSN as well. Still, I'm pretty sure that AT&T doesn't need your social to provide DSL or phone lines.
The only people who should have your SSN are your employer, the government, and your bank(s). AT&T shouldn't have anyone's SSN except its own employees.
The stereotype for /.ers is that they like video games but hate Football. Does this extend to video game representations of Football?
It does not look like this technique will be useful against AIDS. Though the article is sparse on details, it says the treatment targets specific antigens that appear in about half of cancer types. The problem with AIDS is that it mutates rapidly, and this means that the antigens on its surface change with time. As a result, even if we could modify one patient's cells to kill Alice's AIDS, we would need a different set of modifications to kill Bob's AIDS.
Obviously some games will support Dynamic Advertising better than others. Even the Article talks about doing this for sports simulations- racing, basketball, etc.- where such a thing would fit in. I am worried about this advertising in Battlefield 2142- It might be really disturbing to see XBox ads in advanced battlefields. Of course, with some humor it might be good-
Get the New HBox! Fully supports the latest HD-Holofield Technology!
Drink Pepsi- Official Drink of the Alpha Centauri Reasearch Station!
McDonalds- Proud Sponsor of the 2142 Olympic Games!
Basically I think you have difficulty accepting that you can be a nice guy without being entirely selfless. Let's take "Fred" for example- a fictional nice guy. Fred has found out that if he is nice and polite to people, they are usually nice and polite to him. Thus, Fred's politeness is also in Fred's self-interest. Now, let's say that you knew that Fred was a nice guy- and then found out that he actually expects other people to be nice in return! Would that lower your opinion of Fred? If so, how much?
Also, different programs are released for free or open-source for various reasons. Since many people may contribute together for one project, each person might have different reasons for joining. Some might do it for the prestige. Others might do it as a learning experience. Some do it as a political statement. Some do it for efficiency. Some do it for business reasons- either to build name recognition or as a means of getting cheap software for themselves (for instance, it might be cheaper for a large group of companies to each send $10 per employee to fund Open Office and use that, than to pay $50/employee for MS Office). Some people do open source for the hippy free-love and software thing.
Another point... let's take the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Here we have people trying to make the world a better place. And, of course, they have their names attached to it. You could argue that Bill Gates is just trying to go down in history as the greatest philanthropist ever... but I would argue that that just makes him an arrogant generous person. I would think anyone criticizing them because they wanted their name on the Foundation to be a wee bit self-righteous.
Also, what you may be missing is that all software comes with strings attached. Open Source software also needs those strings if you don't want other people stealing your work and claiming it as their own product.
Lastly... How many books have you read by "Anonymous". Do you know of any paintings by an unknown artist (Graffiti doesn't count). Do you know of any advances in Science or Mathematics where the inventor/discover didn't want anyrecognition? (Try "Primary Colors" and Gregory Perelman, but these are huge exceptions to the rule). Why do you think Free Software should be different?
I'm actually trying to make a few points with this. First, just because some people do the right thing for selfish reasons doesn't mean everyone doing the right thing is doing it for selfish reasons. Second, if we can get people to do the right thing for selfish reasons, that's probably a good thing. Third, just because people get some small benefit from helping others, that doesn't change that they are being helpful. Lastly, people want credit for their work, free or not.
You know, I don't really know where you're coming from.
You like free software and use it, but you:
1. Are uncomfortable with people getting anything out of making free software,
2. Feel that Free Software one created isn't worth including in a resume.
Conclusion: You think Free software has no value, but use it anyway.
You feel that people shouldn't get recognition for writing free software, but feel that they should get recognition (and money) for writing commercial software.
Conclusion: You think Free Software is worthless.
As far as I can tell, you seem to think that because it's free, it has no value. Yet you apparently use and appreciate free software? How does one reconcile these two things?
You've compared giving away software to donating to charity, and I would have to agree. You claim that needing recognition for charity is lame, and I could agree with that, too. But you seem to be saying that "Well, if charity was illegal, it wouldn't matter- you would just have to give money to charity secretly." That's where everyone starts to get annoyed with you. Don't you think that if donating to the Red Cross was illegal, that it would quickly fail as a charity? In the same way huge open source projects like Open Office, Firefox, and most Linux distros would quickly fall apart if they became illegal to distribute. Corporate support would vanish instantly- Corporations have to keep track of where the money goes. Furthermore, finding free software would be much more difficult, and you couldn't trust that what you found wasn't secretly malware.
Also, Stop complaining that free software writers are 'getting something from their work'- it's like complaining that teachers are paid money for teaching kids. I'm sure you've known teachers who could be making a lot more money in industry than they were in a classroom, and complaing that they are 'getting something from their work' because they make a salary is both offensive to them and incredibly short-sighted on your part.
For another example, take an artist who decides to beautify his city with murals, and do this for free. If he signed his name at the bottom right corner of the murals, does that mean that the artist is just doing it for recognition, and that his generous donation fo time and supplies is just self-seeking?
Look, why should you care why people write free software? You are obviously benefiting from their software, so encourages free software by letting people sing their name to there work is good, right? Besides, building up a reputation as a programmer is very important to a lot of people for more than just ego. Having software out there with your name on it lets employers know what you can do and have done. I'm sure you keep track of what you've done on your resume somewhere, right?
Also, people should have the right to distribute their own works in whatever way they want. They should have just as much of a right to give their works away with their name attached as to sell their works to a company for money. Don't start acting self-righteous about people who just want to put their own name on their work, Mr. "I sign my name to the end of all my comments."
Yes, you're correct- let's all ignore IP laws, and just be careful to do so anonymously so that we can't get in trouble. Who cares what laws they pass, we'll just ignore them anyway. Of course, if you're going to run illegal software, why bother with Open Source when you can just pirate the latest Microsoft software?
We've discussed this with you in the past, Steve- Open Source is worthless if it isn't legal and doesn't credit the inventor. For one thing, many Open Source products come from or are supported by companies that would not participate in illegal activity. For another, most people want to take credit for the work they have done. For a third, laws that illegalize good behavior make criminals out of good people.
Look, I despise the RIAA as much as the next Slashdotter, but I can't fault the Judge's logic in this case. The Judge requested evidence, the woman destroyed the evidence, and I don't think that anyone here even has 'reasonable doubt' that the woman wasn't pulling songs off BearShare. If I were the Judge I would find her guilty as well.
He is correct that Spain is not the poorest western European country. However, I do find it amusing that the only thing he complains about in your comment is the one thing that has no relevance to your argument.
"Journey to the Ants" covers much of this information, including that Odontomachus species have the fastest neural reflex arc known- the time between when their mouth hairs touch something and they start biting it is something like .13 milliseconds. Moral of the story- don't stick your finger in their mouth, you will get bitten.
It's one of those things where they are trying to get patents on borderline computer programs- things that some people consider computer programs and some don't. If that succeeds, they can keep trying to patent things which are more and more obviously software, but if they have precedent they can probably get such things patented- until software patenting becomes legal. That's kinda how it happened in the U.S.- software wasn't patentable until 1989, but someone pointed out that you could patent a computer chip that had a program hard-coded into it, but you couldn't patent the same program in software, and managed to get the courts to allow software patents.
No, the EU doesn't care whether or not a computer program is 'novel' or 'non-obvious'- the EU just forbids software patents, algorithms, and most other mathematical constucts from being patented. For instance, if Andrew Wiles wanted to Patent Fermat's Last Theorem he couldn't- not because it's obvious (it took mathematicians 350+ years to solve), but because it's a mathematical proof.
Who are we at war with, exactly? Iraq? Afganistan? Lebanon? No, we're at war with "Terror"- a war which will never end as long as there are people willing to kill innocents to make a statement. Does this give the President unlimited Authority? Also, the President in is charge of the Army and Navy, yes, but is the Army wiretapping your house? Is the Navy Monitoring you Internet connection? Even if they were, if the president told the Army to go to your mother's house and throw grenades into the basement until you stopped posting on Slashdot, would that be legal?
I would like to think you are being sarcastic and not a moron- but if so, you really need to work on your delivery.
Actually, you are not the first to think of something similar to this. However, usually the theory is not that enjoyment causes skill to increase faster- usually the theory is that people pratice what they enjoy more than they practice what they don't. For instance, let's say that you're the best student in your 2nd grade math class (we'll assume from innate talent). Now let's say there are other students, John (who is average at math) and Joe (who is the worst at math). You will probably equate math with being fun- you get positive feedback for it, and you'll get a minor ego boost every time you do well. Joe, meanwhile, will probably try to avoid math because he feels like a failure and an idiot whenever he gets his tests back. Naturally you will do more math-realted activities than Joe or John, and you will get better at it at an improved rate.