I have purchased/downloaded a program (hired a maid) that arranges HTML for me and makes it look pretty (performs menial tasks around my house). This program (maid) takes the documents from the webserver and puts them on my HDD (goes to borders and buys a book). The program then adds links to things it thinks I might be interested in (reads the book to me, adding commentary at times)(and then wipes my ass with the pages). I fail to see how that can be construed as illegal/immoral/unethical.
You make a logical fault in assuming that IE is doing work on your behalf. It is not. It's doing work on Microsoft's behalf. Perhaps this feature will be configurable to operate with user preferences, but unless the user takes it upon themselves to program it the way they like, it will continue to do work for Microsoft. That is unethical on their part. That's like the bookstore by default selling you a copy of an altered book(as I said in my other post) when you ask for an author's latest work, and only giving you a copy of the unaltered original if you explicitly ask for it. Most people wouldn't even know to expect such a situation.
This action is unethical because they add these things without the knowledge(or consent) of either the user nor the content producer/distributor. You would need consent from one or the other to make it an ethical practice. I don't deny that this is a useful feature, but it should be disabled by default.
The program then adds links to things it thinks I might be interested in (reads the book to me, adding commentary at times)
This is where you fall down: "(reads the book to me, adding commentary at times)" What assurance do you have that the commentary is truthful and not just propoganda? If you don't know how to read(and so you NEED someone to read it to you - this roughly corresponds to end users who have trouble with anything computer related), how will you know what they're saying is truthful? Would you just take their word for it? Would you take Microsoft's word for it? I sure as hell wouldn't. We don't live in an age of corporate trust and honour, no matter how much I'd like it to be so.
As for the first part of your post, the Chapters bookstore is the webserver, not the browser.
No it's not. The book publishers are the webserver. The author creates the content, the book publishers distribute it. The bookstore serves the function of the internet connecting the content distributors with the content consumers(book buyers). Just as it would be unethical for an ISP to add it's own content into every page that passes through it's routers, so it's unethical for any entity to add anything that is potentially for it's own benefit to any channel between content distributor and content consumer, without the distributors' or consumers' consent(or consumers' knowledge at the very least so he can choose whether or not to use it).
In this case, the "entity" is IE which is inserting links without knowledge or consent of the end user or the author. YOU are the content consumer, not IE, and is IE not working for you. Anything which purports to transmit content to you should do so without modification as the content producer intended it, since that's obviously what you were looking for in the first place. If the transmission channel(ISP's, IE, etc.) wish to alter content as a service or as a "charge"(in the case of ads) by default, then they should make it explicitly clear that their services result in such be modifications. http://free.anonymizer.com is such an example.
Note: I have no problem with this feature, except it's potential for abuse; knowing Microsoft's past, they will abuse it. IE is free so I have no problem with them adding it even for their own benefit. But it is unethical practice if the end user or content producer does not know what's going on or cannot turn it off. The fact that Microsoft turns this on in IE by default and that a site must insert a meta tag to turn it off makes it an unethical practice. It's embrace and extend taken another way: it forces people to do yet more work to get things working the way they should work by default.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Re:The problem with Napster and the RIAA
on
Napster Going Legit
·
· Score: 1
The problem Napster has is that there is no solution which retains the user's right to copy any music they buy as many times as they like FOR THEIR OWN USE, but prevents them from giving it away to all their friends.
Yes there is. It's called ethics. The users and the are all seriously lacking in the aformentioned quality.
So it seems to me that you're saying that I am not allowed to use a highliter in my textbooks. They're copyrighted works, right?
You're kidding right? This is nothing like what's being done here. First of all, YOU are the one who owns the book, so you can do whatever you like with it(limited by the law of course). In this case, a third party (Microsoft) is adding whatever they like and then serving it to you as if it came from the original source. It's like Chapters bookstore adding a new chapter to a book without the author's permission and then selling it as if it came directly from the author. Are you telling me that's ok?
The content provider does not have to approve the way I use the content barring public presentation, redistribution, etc. I can go down to Borders, pick up a copy of Finnegan's Wake, go home and proceed to wipe my ass with every page (front and back) of it.
Damn right you could! Unfortunately, your logic is flawed, because it is not YOU who is changing the content, it's Microsoft that has taken it upon themselves to alter it to their liking, then innocently hand it to you as if nothing really happened.
It's not a big, public launch, and like any launch of a web-based product, you're going to see browser incompatibilities. If my company could get back every dime spent on dealing with the differences between IE and Netscape, we'd be in a hell of a lot better market position.
The problem with this site is that it requires Windows. That's what sucks and is totally wrong.
I think an acceptable compromise/settlement would be if the company paid Avery to distribute the source under a more compatible license(or dual license it), ie. change it from GPL to LGPL so they could distribute it the way they are doing now.
Avery gets some kind of compensation for writing good software and making it free, so it's fair to him, the software remains free and open which is very important, the company avoids legal problems and so saves money and face, and they look good for finding a fair solution by supporting an open source developer and for not trying to sneak around the GPL(though it's kinda too late, they can still get back in good graces).
This is similar to the situation where Mandrake hired the developer behind Bochs and released the source under the GPL, and is now paying him to develop plex86 also under the GPL.
The quote is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither Liberty nor security."
You sure about that? The on I have written down goes: "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both." I'dl like to get the correct one for my collection.
There is only one little problem with this, nothing can move in spacetime. Spacetime is frozen from the infinite past tot he infinite future, by definition.
I'm sorry, where exactly does it say this? If matter can't move in space-time, then I think Einstein would have noticed that none of his thought experiements were even possible.
Spacetime is really an abstract math trick.
I don't know why you're getting all your panties in a bunch.;-) I'll let you in on a little secret about science: any field which uses mathematics to explain anything is using a mathematical model. By definition, models do not necessarily have any grounding in reality. But it is absolutely unquestionable that the models can accurately describe the observed physical phenomena. Otherwise, why would they be adopted? Can you tell me with a straight face that Einstein's equations don't accurately describe gravitational effects? You can't.
Are there such things as gluons, quarks, neutrino's, time dilation as described in the Standard Model? Is there even such a thing as energy? What is energy? It's a mathematical construct, just like space-time. Are you saying that just because it's mathematical, that energy doesn't exist? How else would you explain the effects commonly attributed to energy? Whether there actually is an entity called space-time may always remain a mystery. Fortunately, that fact almost completely irrelevant. It's just a model, and will always be so. A correct model at that (until proven otherwise).
Also, you're just substituting one man's word for another's. I don't see how the one quoted paragraph you provided in any way constitutes any kind of proof that space-time doesn't exist, or that Einstein's theory is impossible. I could just as easily find someone who will say with absolute certainty that the Sun revolves around the Earth. That doesn't make it so.
The problem with DC is that a power surge will melt your whole line. It's a fire hazard and it's very costly since you have to replace the whol thing. AC localizes power surges so only the location of the spike will fail and need replacing. But you're right that DC is more efficient in power transmission.
And no, it is not spacetime curvature. Spacetime curvature is an abstract representaion of the effect of gravity, not the cause.
Sorry, that's mistaken. Let me clear this up for you: according to relativity, the effect known as gravity is caused by spacetime curvature. Mass bends spacetime and, by extension, mass causes gravity. Assuming that Einstein's equations are indeed correct, this doesn't necessarily mean that this is exactly what is actually happening(ie. that there is such a thing as spacetime that is being bent by the presence of mass). It is an elegant model that we use to explain the mathematics which are correct. Let me say this again, the mathematics may be correct, but our interpretation may be off.
But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free.
No. No licensed software is ever free because it is just that: licensed. You can do whatever you want with it as long as you abide by the terms of the license. The BSD license is not totally free either. There is only one completely free way to release code: public domain. That's it.
The GPL was invented to promote freedom from Intellectual Property and to protect people from money-grubbing corporations who would try and restrict our freedom for their bottom line. It's primary purpose is not absolute freedom, but fairness.
As someone else noted, writing it in another language would simply slow development and hinder FreeNet's cross platform nature. Also, keep in mind that FreeNet is very experimental and the current release is still considered proof-of-concept stage, ie. nowhere near finished.
It just struck me that this is a fine definition of a virus, as well. (A biological virus, not a computer virus.)
Not quite. Most viruses have RNA(though some have DNA as well). Also, viruses don't have tails and cannot propel themselves under their own power. They literally just float along until they hit something.
Newton was, in fact, responding sarcastically to claims that he had stolen ideas from either Leibnitz or Hooke (I forget which).
It was Leibnitz and Newton who came up with the fundamentals of calculus but Newton's version went into wide spread use. The Leibnitz calculus became known as Leibnitz notation and was particularly useful at solving some types calculus problems(so it was delegated to those areas).
CDs are in greater demand than cassette tapes, and therefore they can get away with charging a higher price for them.
Not quite. When CD's first came out they were not in high demand, yet they were still more expensive. The justification then was infinite reproducibility and high sound quality because it was a digital recording.
Art is expressive and is protected. If you can show that code/programs are art or speech you've got it. Evidence in support of either is good, whether you agree with it or not. Your opinion about what is or is not art is irrelevant. Not everyone shares your taste. Simply because you may not think the Mona Lisa is art, does not make it so.
A traditionally coded application, from Office through to Quake, the Linux kernel to Windows XP, doesn't really express anything. Its a means to an end. Theres no real intended statement, its a tool. Just as the words in my documentation aren't a novel, and my nicely presented flowcharts aren't art. They serve a definite purpose, and that isn't one of expression.
Political speech and protests are means to an end too, yet they are protected expression. Their primary purpose is to accomplish what they're protesting against. Just because something is functional, doesn't mean it isn't expressive. In the context of a university operating systems course, the linux kernel is very expressive and theoretically could entirely replace the course' textbook. Ability to replace a hefty textbook with 20MB of compressed source indicates something very expressive, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
I have purchased/downloaded a program (hired a maid) that arranges HTML for me and makes it look pretty (performs menial tasks around my house). This program (maid) takes the documents from the webserver and puts them on my HDD (goes to borders and buys a book). The program then adds links to things it thinks I might be interested in (reads the book to me, adding commentary at times)(and then wipes my ass with the pages). I fail to see how that can be construed as illegal/immoral/unethical.
You make a logical fault in assuming that IE is doing work on your behalf. It is not. It's doing work on Microsoft's behalf. Perhaps this feature will be configurable to operate with user preferences, but unless the user takes it upon themselves to program it the way they like, it will continue to do work for Microsoft. That is unethical on their part. That's like the bookstore by default selling you a copy of an altered book(as I said in my other post) when you ask for an author's latest work, and only giving you a copy of the unaltered original if you explicitly ask for it. Most people wouldn't even know to expect such a situation.
This action is unethical because they add these things without the knowledge(or consent) of either the user nor the content producer/distributor. You would need consent from one or the other to make it an ethical practice. I don't deny that this is a useful feature, but it should be disabled by default.
The program then adds links to things it thinks I might be interested in (reads the book to me, adding commentary at times)
This is where you fall down: "(reads the book to me, adding commentary at times)" What assurance do you have that the commentary is truthful and not just propoganda? If you don't know how to read(and so you NEED someone to read it to you - this roughly corresponds to end users who have trouble with anything computer related), how will you know what they're saying is truthful? Would you just take their word for it? Would you take Microsoft's word for it? I sure as hell wouldn't. We don't live in an age of corporate trust and honour, no matter how much I'd like it to be so.
As for the first part of your post, the Chapters bookstore is the webserver, not the browser.
No it's not. The book publishers are the webserver. The author creates the content, the book publishers distribute it. The bookstore serves the function of the internet connecting the content distributors with the content consumers(book buyers). Just as it would be unethical for an ISP to add it's own content into every page that passes through it's routers, so it's unethical for any entity to add anything that is potentially for it's own benefit to any channel between content distributor and content consumer, without the distributors' or consumers' consent(or consumers' knowledge at the very least so he can choose whether or not to use it).
In this case, the "entity" is IE which is inserting links without knowledge or consent of the end user or the author. YOU are the content consumer, not IE, and is IE not working for you. Anything which purports to transmit content to you should do so without modification as the content producer intended it, since that's obviously what you were looking for in the first place. If the transmission channel(ISP's, IE, etc.) wish to alter content as a service or as a "charge"(in the case of ads) by default, then they should make it explicitly clear that their services result in such be modifications. http://free.anonymizer.com is such an example.
Note: I have no problem with this feature, except it's potential for abuse; knowing Microsoft's past, they will abuse it. IE is free so I have no problem with them adding it even for their own benefit. But it is unethical practice if the end user or content producer does not know what's going on or cannot turn it off. The fact that Microsoft turns this on in IE by default and that a site must insert a meta tag to turn it off makes it an unethical practice. It's embrace and extend taken another way: it forces people to do yet more work to get things working the way they should work by default.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
The problem Napster has is that there is no solution which retains the user's right to copy any music they buy as many times as they like FOR THEIR OWN USE, but prevents them from giving it away to all their friends.
Yes there is. It's called ethics. The users and the are all seriously lacking in the aformentioned quality.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
So it seems to me that you're saying that I am not allowed to use a highliter in my textbooks. They're copyrighted works, right?
You're kidding right? This is nothing like what's being done here. First of all, YOU are the one who owns the book, so you can do whatever you like with it(limited by the law of course). In this case, a third party (Microsoft) is adding whatever they like and then serving it to you as if it came from the original source. It's like Chapters bookstore adding a new chapter to a book without the author's permission and then selling it as if it came directly from the author. Are you telling me that's ok?
The content provider does not have to approve the way I use the content barring public presentation, redistribution, etc. I can go down to Borders, pick up a copy of Finnegan's Wake, go home and proceed to wipe my ass with every page (front and back) of it.
Damn right you could! Unfortunately, your logic is flawed, because it is not YOU who is changing the content, it's Microsoft that has taken it upon themselves to alter it to their liking, then innocently hand it to you as if nothing really happened.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Berlin
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
It's not a big, public launch, and like any launch of a web-based product, you're going to see browser incompatibilities. If my company could get back every dime spent on dealing with the differences between IE and Netscape, we'd be in a hell of a lot better market position.
The problem with this site is that it requires Windows. That's what sucks and is totally wrong.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Or Lesser GPL.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
I think an acceptable compromise/settlement would be if the company paid Avery to distribute the source under a more compatible license(or dual license it), ie. change it from GPL to LGPL so they could distribute it the way they are doing now.
Avery gets some kind of compensation for writing good software and making it free, so it's fair to him, the software remains free and open which is very important, the company avoids legal problems and so saves money and face, and they look good for finding a fair solution by supporting an open source developer and for not trying to sneak around the GPL(though it's kinda too late, they can still get back in good graces).
This is similar to the situation where Mandrake hired the developer behind Bochs and released the source under the GPL, and is now paying him to develop plex86 also under the GPL.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
The quote is: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary security, deserve neither Liberty nor security."
You sure about that? The on I have written down goes: "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will deserve neither and lose both." I'dl like to get the correct one for my collection.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Now we'll see IANALBIRDC (I Am Not A Lawyer But I Read Digital Copyright)
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
No, he means variable capacitors which you need to tune filters on radios.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Oops... slight oversight on my part. Time dilation isn't described in the Standard model.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
There is only one little problem with this, nothing can move in spacetime. Spacetime is frozen from the infinite past tot he infinite future, by definition.
;-) I'll let you in on a little secret about science: any field which uses mathematics to explain anything is using a mathematical model. By definition, models do not necessarily have any grounding in reality. But it is absolutely unquestionable that the models can accurately describe the observed physical phenomena. Otherwise, why would they be adopted? Can you tell me with a straight face that Einstein's equations don't accurately describe gravitational effects? You can't.
I'm sorry, where exactly does it say this? If matter can't move in space-time, then I think Einstein would have noticed that none of his thought experiements were even possible.
Spacetime is really an abstract math trick.
I don't know why you're getting all your panties in a bunch.
Are there such things as gluons, quarks, neutrino's, time dilation as described in the Standard Model? Is there even such a thing as energy? What is energy? It's a mathematical construct, just like space-time. Are you saying that just because it's mathematical, that energy doesn't exist? How else would you explain the effects commonly attributed to energy? Whether there actually is an entity called space-time may always remain a mystery. Fortunately, that fact almost completely irrelevant. It's just a model, and will always be so. A correct model at that (until proven otherwise).
Also, you're just substituting one man's word for another's. I don't see how the one quoted paragraph you provided in any way constitutes any kind of proof that space-time doesn't exist, or that Einstein's theory is impossible. I could just as easily find someone who will say with absolute certainty that the Sun revolves around the Earth. That doesn't make it so.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
The problem with DC is that a power surge will melt your whole line. It's a fire hazard and it's very costly since you have to replace the whol thing. AC localizes power surges so only the location of the spike will fail and need replacing. But you're right that DC is more efficient in power transmission.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
And no, it is not spacetime curvature. Spacetime curvature is an abstract representaion of the effect of gravity, not the cause.
Sorry, that's mistaken. Let me clear this up for you: according to relativity, the effect known as gravity is caused by spacetime curvature. Mass bends spacetime and, by extension, mass causes gravity. Assuming that Einstein's equations are indeed correct, this doesn't necessarily mean that this is exactly what is actually happening(ie. that there is such a thing as spacetime that is being bent by the presence of mass). It is an elegant model that we use to explain the mathematics which are correct. Let me say this again, the mathematics may be correct, but our interpretation may be off.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
try: wget --mirror
Be VERY careful with that.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
But let's be completely honest: GPL-ed software is not literally and wholly free.
No. No licensed software is ever free because it is just that: licensed. You can do whatever you want with it as long as you abide by the terms of the license. The BSD license is not totally free either. There is only one completely free way to release code: public domain. That's it.
The GPL was invented to promote freedom from Intellectual Property and to protect people from money-grubbing corporations who would try and restrict our freedom for their bottom line. It's primary purpose is not absolute freedom, but fairness.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Perhaps you should check Freshmeat before you post:
LibFreeNet
FreeClient
Both are writtin in C.
As someone else noted, writing it in another language would simply slow development and hinder FreeNet's cross platform nature. Also, keep in mind that FreeNet is very experimental and the current release is still considered proof-of-concept stage, ie. nowhere near finished.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Unfortunately, it wouldn't actually be legal.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
It just struck me that this is a fine definition of a virus, as well. (A biological virus, not a computer virus.)
Not quite. Most viruses have RNA(though some have DNA as well). Also, viruses don't have tails and cannot propel themselves under their own power. They literally just float along until they hit something.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
personal attacks in a public forum make us look bad to the average joe.
Are you kidding? The average joe loves fights! I can hear him now... "Ooooo! You gonna take that Mundie? Fight! Fight! Fight!..."
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Newton was, in fact, responding sarcastically to claims that he had stolen ideas from either Leibnitz or Hooke (I forget which).
It was Leibnitz and Newton who came up with the fundamentals of calculus but Newton's version went into wide spread use. The Leibnitz calculus became known as Leibnitz notation and was particularly useful at solving some types calculus problems(so it was delegated to those areas).
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
with more funding they could become the academic playground and free-thinkers paradise they once were.
Unfortunately, they were never really that.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
CDs are in greater demand than cassette tapes, and therefore they can get away with charging a higher price for them.
Not quite. When CD's first came out they were not in high demand, yet they were still more expensive. The justification then was infinite reproducibility and high sound quality because it was a digital recording.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Art is expressive and is protected. If you can show that code/programs are art or speech you've got it. Evidence in support of either is good, whether you agree with it or not. Your opinion about what is or is not art is irrelevant. Not everyone shares your taste. Simply because you may not think the Mona Lisa is art, does not make it so.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
A traditionally coded application, from Office through to Quake, the Linux kernel to Windows XP, doesn't really express anything. Its a means to an end. Theres no real intended statement, its a tool. Just as the words in my documentation aren't a novel, and my nicely presented flowcharts aren't art. They serve a definite purpose, and that isn't one of expression.
Political speech and protests are means to an end too, yet they are protected expression. Their primary purpose is to accomplish what they're protesting against. Just because something is functional, doesn't mean it isn't expressive. In the context of a university operating systems course, the linux kernel is very expressive and theoretically could entirely replace the course' textbook. Ability to replace a hefty textbook with 20MB of compressed source indicates something very expressive, don't you think?
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"