I'm an anti-copyright activist (as much as my time allows, anyway), but I know very well that the extinction of copyright is something that probably won't happen before I die (legally, at least).
What's the alternative then? For the time being, I really think the most feasible solution would be a system of renewable copyright. Make it so that any copyrighted work can have its copyright renewed after 'n' years if and as long as the holder thinks it's worth the effort, with the first renewal being free and subsequent renewals costing progressively more (in real valuation, already taking inflation into account), without an upper limit. This way, works whose authors don't mind becoming public domain will enter it pretty fast, and those that are valuable will also at some point enter the public domain once the renewal costs more than the profit that could be made from it.
Doing this wouldn't damage the huge corporations (Disney) who already spend tons of money in extending their own copyrights through lobbying, so they would have no reason to oppose it, while at the same time solving most of the problems seen in the current system. Why don't we start defending this instead of just complaining about the extension copyright currently has?
Let "them" have their Mickey Mouse, Jerry Lewis, Madonna and Luke Skywalker, I don't care. My problem is with the rare books, videos and musics that for no good reason won't be legally available to me for decades upon decades upon decades...
sorry, since when has any company ever done anything good for good's sake? Even Google says "Don't be evil" with a rarely quoted "because being evil for short-term profits means less mind-share and therefore less profits in the long-term."
Very true. But you should also consider that when a company "does good", this "good" must be good in the most general way, thus including the company itself. If they do "good for good's sake" in such as way that it's bad for the company itself, then this "good" is only a partial good, for in some way it's a "bad" for its shareholders, for its founders, for its employees etc.
I think your occult premise that for one to do good he must sacrifice himself in some way isn't generally true. It might be true in some cases, but surely not in all cases, nor even in the majority of the cases. For a company to choose, among the goods it can do, those that don't negatively impact itself, is as much common sense as you doing the exact same thing in your own personal or professional lives.
But the point is that geography matters. They do something nasty to some guys on Germany, and all of a sudden not only a obscure groups of German fans is pissed, but people all over the world start complaining. If that doesn't cause at least a "What the Hell!?" reaction in them, I think nothing (short of actual bankruptcy) ever will.
In any case, Brazil is in fact one of the main worldwide consumers of RPG-related goods. We have widely deployed pen-and-paper monthly magazines on the subject that are running uninterrupted for over a decade, the most important titles are translated and available for sale in the big book shops, and all the time there are RPG events happening in lots of cities. It's not a small market by any means, even though tabletop miniatures themselves are, as far as I know, just a small subset of it.
Over the last months, since I discovered about the Warhammer 40,000 franchise, I had read many positive reviews on what seems to be a really nice fictional universe with some pretty good games based on it.
However, after reading today's Slashdot article (link below) on how Games Workshop is bullying the producers of a German fan movie based on the Warhammer 40,000 universe, I must confess your misguided approach to the situation caused my interest to drop into nothingness.
Thus, I'm sad to inform you that, effective today, I'm not only utterly uninterested on your games, but actively boycotting each, every and all products based on each, every and all pieces of Games Workshop intellectual property. I'm also advising all my contacts (those who play games and video-games, and those who read fantasy and sci-fi to do the same.
The moment you drop your bullying tactics towards fans is the moment I'll think about becoming one. Before that, sorry, but it's too risky.
In the meantime, I hope you take the backlash on your decision wisely, for your PR and legal departments certainly don't seem to understand how the fan/producers relationship is developed and maintained in the new world of 21st century Internet. The geometric progression you'll experience on this matter in the following days will surely be instructive, provided your management shows some willingness to learn from it.
And what if the Image is not on a flash memory, but on a ROM? (unlikely, but still possible)
GPLv3 allows for this in a very specific case:
6. (. ..) this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
Notice that if there is a way to change the software, by writing a new ROM or something like that, then the details on how to do so must be provided to the end user.
In contrast, the situation we were talking about is where the system restricts anything, including the manufacturer-supplied Samba, via (e.g.) a system call that implements DRM. It would go something like this: "PID n wants to open a (DRM'd) file -> kernel checks whether the proper key is supplied -> kernal refuses to decrypt the file."
Ah, I see! In any case, provided the manufacturer supplied Samba can use the key, and my own Samba can use the key, without mine being discriminated in any way, then sure, this is allowed. Besides, such a scheme wouldn't be prevented even by a GPLv3 kernel. AFAIK, if the DRM is, say, a public key encryption/decryption data exchange, it's surely allowed. The requirement is simply that the key a supplier-provided GPLv3 software uses must be as much usable by (and available to) any user-provided GPLv3 software that replaces it.
We are in agreement then. The anti-DRM clause just forbids someone from adding restrictions on the GPLv3 code itself.
With Samba itself there probably aren't that many instances in which this happens, but if there is some manufacturer out there deploying different models of Samba-enabled NAS devices, whose differences are arbitrary limitations on the number of domains/clients connections built into the Samba code itself, for which he charges different prices (let's say, an "unlimited" version, a "5 domain/50 clients" version, an "1 domain/10 clients" version etc.), he's going to have to change his business model if he wishes to use Samba 3.2.
But sure, other than this there's not much that Samba, by itself, can cause. Except maybe, provided the underlying system isn't a VM, by offering a hole through which hackers might be able to crack all of the (remaining) DRM in the device.
(. ..) you would still be able to modify the copy of Samba and run it on the device (which is all the GPLv3 requires). It's just that, since you wouldn't be able to access the hypothetical DRM'd thing because something outside of Samba was disallowing it, modifying Samba wouldn't help you get around that limitation.
It depends. Imagine a NAS which has features A and B, both accessible by the supplier-provided Samba. Per the GPLv3, the supplier must allow me to change this Samba to anything I wish. So, suppose he allows me to install another Samba of mine, but by doing so, I lose access to features A, being only allowed to access feature B. This is precisely what the license forbids.
What the GLPv3 says is that my Samba must have the same access to the underlying system that the supplier's Samba has. If you try to lock down your system so that my Samba doesn't have the same access that yours have, you're in breach of the license, and must adjust your system by: a) allowing any Samba access to both features A and B; or b) denying any Samba access to feature A, including yours own deployed version; or c) removing Samba entirely and replacing it by a non-GPLv3 software package.
In other words, if a device is built in a way that prevents a changed GPLv3 software from working as the manufacturer-provided one, then the manufacturer is forbidden from deploying that GPLv3 software in that device. Either any change I made to the GPLv3 software has the same access rights as the GPLv3 software already installed there, or no version of said software can be there in the first place.
That doesn't have to mean much since no one is obligated to provide you with a working solution.
Yes, they are, otherwise they're violating the license:
6. (. ..) "Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. (. ..)
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
This is akin to the requirement for the published source code to be in the most usable version, not some obfuscated one. If you provide GLPv3 code, you must provide all details for it to be changed by the user. Providing partial, incomplete, or non-functional information isn't allowed.
Not when access to the DRM data has been blocked in the kernel. Not much that an older Samba version can do about that.
If this is a way to forbid the user to change or replace the GPLv3 software with anything else he desires, yes, it's forbidden. I quote again:
The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
(...) how is it that the GPL3 is jumping from one project to another?
It isn't. It's just stating that, in practice: a) you DRM'ing GPLv3 code itself is pointless, since this DRM must be removable by the end user if he so wishes; and b) wrapping GPLv3 code inside an external DRM solution as a way to workaround "a" is forbidden and voids your right to distribute that GPLv3 code. You're still free to wrap-DRM any piece of non-GLPv3 code, but for you to be allowed to distribute GLPv3 code, you must keep this GLPv3 code unwrapped.
You aren't being blocked from using Samba in any way.
Listen: what the GPLv3 says isn't that you're allowed to distribute the software covered by it provided the user is "allowed" to use it. What the GPLv3 says is that you're only allowed to distribute the software covered by provided your user is able to change it in any way he sees fit. If your device doesn't allow your end user to change the software the way he sees fit, then you are not allowed to distribute it.
There's no way around it. The GPLv3 was designed from the ground up to block this exact behavior you described, for it was indeed allowed by the GPLv2 and seen as one of its main weaknesses. Unless there's a pretty obvious hole in the GPLv3 that no one noticed over the many drafts, what you say is simply impossible.
So, either the manufacturer provide the kernel keys that will allow his end users to modify each, every and all GPLv3 code inside the device, or he must stick to the old GLPv2 version of it, fork it, replace it with BSD versions, adopt a 3rd party proprietary solution, develop a replacement in house, or whatever. To make GLPv3 code unmodifiable by the end user in the device it was distributed with is forbidden, no matter from where said "unmodifiability" comes from.
Now, they could modify the kernel to implement the DRM, and release an unmodified Samba >=3.2. Since you could implement pretty much any DRM system in the kernel (and it's probably the best way to do it, short of hardware measures), Samba doing this stops very little.
No, no, no! Quite the opposite in fact! If they provide a DRM'ed device with GLPv3 Samba installed, the GLPv3 license says that they MUST provide you all information you need to be able to replace that pre-packaged Samba with any GPLv3 Samba you, or anyone else, provide.
So, it doesn't matter whether the DRM scheme is on the kernel, on the firmware, or wherever. If it's blocking you, the end-user, from updating, upgrading, recompiling, downgrading, replacing etc. etc. etc. a piece of GPLv3 software, they are in violation of the license and must either: a) stop distributing those pieces of GPLv3 software; or b) comply with the license by providing you, the end user, all the required codes to mess with it as you see fit; or c) deal with the problem in the court when they're sued, and with the fact they're are going to lose. Furthermore, if they're wise and follow "b", there's nothing stopping you, the end user, from installing anything where Samba formerly was, what renders any DRM over the remaining pieces of software pretty much useless.
So, Samba doing this doesn't stop it very little. Samba doing this stops it entirely. Once you add holes in your DRM to accommodate the pieces of GPLv3 software you must add to it, there's in fact no DRM left in the device.
So what? Does switching to GPLv3 change anything about [LOTS of vendors re-packaging Samba and selling it as NAS's and such]? There's nothing those vendors do with Samba that will have to change because of the new restrictions under GPLv3. So who cares?
There is one thing: if a NAS manufacturer has put DRM on the device blocking its owner from changing the underlying software, that manufacturer either won't use the GLPv3 Samba, or to be allowed to use it he will have to at least disclose in full the instructions needed for one to change the underlying software (or more probably, remove the DRM "feature" entirely).
So, yes, this is major news for everyone developing/manufacturing/deploying/using/etc. anything Samba-related.
The multiverse hypothesis is an ancient idea. I remember reading about a poetic image used in Hinduism to describe it: that of "Shiva's Necklace". It's said that the god Shiva, which together with Vishnu and Brahma form the (main) Hinduist Trinity, the Trimurti, wears around his neck an infinitely long necklace with an infinite number of beads. Each bead is a full universe, ours being just one among them, and Earth with us just an infinitesimal aspect of that single bead.
It would be nice if scientists, when talking to non-scientists, drafted lively images like this one. IMHO, it would go a long way in bridging the gap between them and "normal" people, who don't think in terms of numbers and mathematical concepts.
Same thing happened on Mars. Their blue skies and unlimited energy cost them their civilization.
You surely have a point, and that's probably the cause Mars lost its magnetosphere: because it got all consumed billions of years ago by their ancient versions of the Orbo generators! Let's not repeat the same mistake.
I know how the story unfolds. The device will work, by extracting magnetic energy from Earths own magnetic field. In a few years, Steorn will be one of the hugest and most profitable companies in the world, causing oil consumption to almost stop.
Steorn's main geomagnetic extraction complex will, over time, develop into a city, and then into a gigantic megalopolis, which people will call simply "Steorn". The Steorn megalopolis will be circle-shaped, powered by eight gigantic Orbo generators (also delimiters of the city's eight sectors), and divided into two vertical levels, the lower scum one, where low wage workers live, and the high one, were executives, rich people etc. live and work.
Over time, a quasi-religious movement will develop affirming that Steorn's consumption of geomagnetic energy is actually causing Earth to die, and the most fanatic among these will form an eco-terrorist movement dedicated to the destruction of all Orbo generators. The funny thing is: this movement will be actually correct! Worse: not only will Steorn be in fact slowly destroying the world, but they will have also developed advanced genetics research on an alien found years before, using these discoveries to genetically enhance their own self-defense troops.
The history of our future proceeds in many details, but I'll make it short. Suffice it to say that one of these troops will discover all about his increased abilities, the alien, the Orbo generators destroying Earth, and will decide to accelerate the process, by causing a meteor to strike Earth. Earth itself, in a move indicating some kind of self-awareness, will fight back by redirecting its own geomagnetic field against the meteor, destroying it. The collateral effect of this, however, will be a magnetic induced disease over humanity, who will slowly start to die. A cure will be found, but not before much damage happens.
Due to all of this, the world will realize they must stop using geomagnetism as a source of energy, turn off all Orbo generators, and finally turn back to that old means of power generation left behind decades ago: petroleum. So much, in fact, that even the former leader of the anti-Orbo eco-terrorist group will become one of the earliest investors in oil extraction and oil-based energy production.
Let me rephrase. I should have said major Christian religions. That I am aware of, and I grew up in a conservative Baptist church, Christianity teaches that life (as we know it on Earth) is unique.
Well, as others have pointed out, the Baptist Church isn't really a major branch of Christianity. For the (actual) major branches, such a literalist interpretation of the first Bible books is seen as heretic. In some of them this is implicit, in others (such as in the Catholic church) this is actually explicitly so.
The reasoning for this is simple. If you consider that God does whatever he wants, then if he has decided to create another intelligent species out there and not tell us, and decided to do so through evolution, direct creation, a mix of the two, or even some 3rd way, that's perfectly okay.
If/when aliens are found, the only thing that'll happen in these newer literalist churches is they agreeing that the older churches were right in this regards. Right after that, they all (newer and old ones alike) are most probably going to start implementing missionary projects to spread Christianity among the aliens, beginning by translating the Bible into the aliens native tongue (or tongues, as may be the case). And this is all there will be to it.
Now, of course you'll have isolated nuts thinking aliens must be killed "just because". But they won't be much different from the current nuts that think the same regarding blacks, muslims, atheist or whatever: a damaging, but non-representative minority.
I want to see how the major religions deal with it when it is conclusively proven that we are not the only life in the universe.
Hmm... what do you mean, exactly? All religions have the notion the we are not the only life in the universe. Angels, demons, gods, nature spirits etc. are all, by definition, non-human, alive and (most of them) existing in this universe. I don't think any religion would have problems to extend the concept.
Even poor Cuba has a lower infant mortality and higher literacy rate than the US.
Actually, we cannot be sure this is the case. These statistics are provided by the Cuban government itself, and no 3rd party is allowed to verify whether the numbers are true or not. Maybe they indeed are, but if we take the historical example of other same-minded dictatorial governments out there as points of reference, that's unlikely.
The bank once deposited $80,000 into my sisters' account by mistake. She told them about it....the next week, it was "corrected" - it was then $234,000.00.
The funny thing is that many banks (the huge ones mainly) are in fact allowed, by their respective central banks, to "invent" money out of nowhere. This of course causes inflation, but so long as they don't do it so much that it would cause the upper yearly inflation limit set by the central bank to be surpassed, it's perfectly okay.
This is interesting. I offer hard data in my message, and someone classifies me as "troll", while other sets me as "overrated". I wonder what passes in the mind of someone who is so ideologically blind that he doesn't want to discuss the information in a straightforward way, but prefers to simply hide it so no one can see it. This remembers me of those cool students back in my Philosophy classes who talk all the time about how everyone should be allowed to speak their mind, but when one actually appears saying things they dislike, unplug the microphone or yell so much that no one can hear what he's saying. Censorship is freedom of speech, ostracizing your opposition is democracy, mob intimidation is to be intellectually sound? Cognitive dissonance at its best, it seems.
Well, thanks to the US-embargo, Cuba has only a very slow and expensive satellite connection (. ..) Hopefully, the situation will improve by laying a cable to Venezuela, like they state in the article above. And then one can start to complain about internet not being cheaply available to all.
Cuba makes business with more than 135 countries. The USA embargo can be everything, but it surely isn't causing any meaningful economic damage. The day the Cuban government stops "embargoing" the Cuban citizens hands, mouths and minds, is the day things will start improving, with or without any external USA embargo. Until then, there's no hope.
What's an OLPC without Internet connection? Because, if you don't know, the Cuban government mandates that any Internet access by Cubans be made through the official state ISP, which can be dialed up only from phone lines that pay in dollars, which Cubans are usually prohibited from possessing. Worse: if you want a computer, you first need approval from the government, which can simply say "no". Given that, do you think the Communist Party of Cuba would change the rules and allow freedom for children? Some information I googled 3 mins ago:
So, don't fool yourself. Right now, lack of OLPC notebooks is the least of the problems faced by Cuban children. Or, for that matter, by their parents.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an anti-copyright activist (as much as my time allows, anyway), but I know very well that the extinction of copyright is something that probably won't happen before I die (legally, at least).
What's the alternative then? For the time being, I really think the most feasible solution would be a system of renewable copyright. Make it so that any copyrighted work can have its copyright renewed after 'n' years if and as long as the holder thinks it's worth the effort, with the first renewal being free and subsequent renewals costing progressively more (in real valuation, already taking inflation into account), without an upper limit. This way, works whose authors don't mind becoming public domain will enter it pretty fast, and those that are valuable will also at some point enter the public domain once the renewal costs more than the profit that could be made from it.
Doing this wouldn't damage the huge corporations (Disney) who already spend tons of money in extending their own copyrights through lobbying, so they would have no reason to oppose it, while at the same time solving most of the problems seen in the current system. Why don't we start defending this instead of just complaining about the extension copyright currently has?
Let "them" have their Mickey Mouse, Jerry Lewis, Madonna and Luke Skywalker, I don't care. My problem is with the rare books, videos and musics that for no good reason won't be legally available to me for decades upon decades upon decades...
I think your occult premise that for one to do good he must sacrifice himself in some way isn't generally true. It might be true in some cases, but surely not in all cases, nor even in the majority of the cases. For a company to choose, among the goods it can do, those that don't negatively impact itself, is as much common sense as you doing the exact same thing in your own personal or professional lives.
But the point is that geography matters. They do something nasty to some guys on Germany, and all of a sudden not only a obscure groups of German fans is pissed, but people all over the world start complaining. If that doesn't cause at least a "What the Hell!?" reaction in them, I think nothing (short of actual bankruptcy) ever will.
In any case, Brazil is in fact one of the main worldwide consumers of RPG-related goods. We have widely deployed pen-and-paper monthly magazines on the subject that are running uninterrupted for over a decade, the most important titles are translated and available for sale in the big book shops, and all the time there are RPG events happening in lots of cities. It's not a small market by any means, even though tabletop miniatures themselves are, as far as I know, just a small subset of it.
6. (. .
Notice that if there is a way to change the software, by writing a new ROM or something like that, then the details on how to do so must be provided to the end user.
We are in agreement then. The anti-DRM clause just forbids someone from adding restrictions on the GPLv3 code itself.
With Samba itself there probably aren't that many instances in which this happens, but if there is some manufacturer out there deploying different models of Samba-enabled NAS devices, whose differences are arbitrary limitations on the number of domains/clients connections built into the Samba code itself, for which he charges different prices (let's say, an "unlimited" version, a "5 domain/50 clients" version, an "1 domain/10 clients" version etc.), he's going to have to change his business model if he wishes to use Samba 3.2.
But sure, other than this there's not much that Samba, by itself, can cause. Except maybe, provided the underlying system isn't a VM, by offering a hole through which hackers might be able to crack all of the (remaining) DRM in the device.
What the GLPv3 says is that my Samba must have the same access to the underlying system that the supplier's Samba has. If you try to lock down your system so that my Samba doesn't have the same access that yours have, you're in breach of the license, and must adjust your system by: a) allowing any Samba access to both features A and B; or b) denying any Samba access to feature A, including yours own deployed version; or c) removing Samba entirely and replacing it by a non-GPLv3 software package.
In other words, if a device is built in a way that prevents a changed GPLv3 software from working as the manufacturer-provided one, then the manufacturer is forbidden from deploying that GPLv3 software in that device. Either any change I made to the GPLv3 software has the same access rights as the GPLv3 software already installed there, or no version of said software can be there in the first place.
6. (. .
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. (. .
Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
This is akin to the requirement for the published source code to be in the most usable version, not some obfuscated one. If you provide GLPv3 code, you must provide all details for it to be changed by the user. Providing partial, incomplete, or non-functional information isn't allowed.If this is a way to forbid the user to change or replace the GPLv3 software with anything else he desires, yes, it's forbidden. I quote again:
The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
There's no way around it. The GPLv3 was designed from the ground up to block this exact behavior you described, for it was indeed allowed by the GPLv2 and seen as one of its main weaknesses. Unless there's a pretty obvious hole in the GPLv3 that no one noticed over the many drafts, what you say is simply impossible.
So, either the manufacturer provide the kernel keys that will allow his end users to modify each, every and all GPLv3 code inside the device, or he must stick to the old GLPv2 version of it, fork it, replace it with BSD versions, adopt a 3rd party proprietary solution, develop a replacement in house, or whatever. To make GLPv3 code unmodifiable by the end user in the device it was distributed with is forbidden, no matter from where said "unmodifiability" comes from.
So, it doesn't matter whether the DRM scheme is on the kernel, on the firmware, or wherever. If it's blocking you, the end-user, from updating, upgrading, recompiling, downgrading, replacing etc. etc. etc. a piece of GPLv3 software, they are in violation of the license and must either: a) stop distributing those pieces of GPLv3 software; or b) comply with the license by providing you, the end user, all the required codes to mess with it as you see fit; or c) deal with the problem in the court when they're sued, and with the fact they're are going to lose. Furthermore, if they're wise and follow "b", there's nothing stopping you, the end user, from installing anything where Samba formerly was, what renders any DRM over the remaining pieces of software pretty much useless.
So, Samba doing this doesn't stop it very little. Samba doing this stops it entirely. Once you add holes in your DRM to accommodate the pieces of GPLv3 software you must add to it, there's in fact no DRM left in the device.
So, yes, this is major news for everyone developing/manufacturing/deploying/using/etc. anything Samba-related.
The multiverse hypothesis is an ancient idea. I remember reading about a poetic image used in Hinduism to describe it: that of "Shiva's Necklace". It's said that the god Shiva, which together with Vishnu and Brahma form the (main) Hinduist Trinity, the Trimurti, wears around his neck an infinitely long necklace with an infinite number of beads. Each bead is a full universe, ours being just one among them, and Earth with us just an infinitesimal aspect of that single bead.
It would be nice if scientists, when talking to non-scientists, drafted lively images like this one. IMHO, it would go a long way in bridging the gap between them and "normal" people, who don't think in terms of numbers and mathematical concepts.
Sigh. See the actual plot summary for the game and its movie follow up.
I know how the story unfolds. The device will work, by extracting magnetic energy from Earths own magnetic field. In a few years, Steorn will be one of the hugest and most profitable companies in the world, causing oil consumption to almost stop.
Steorn's main geomagnetic extraction complex will, over time, develop into a city, and then into a gigantic megalopolis, which people will call simply "Steorn". The Steorn megalopolis will be circle-shaped, powered by eight gigantic Orbo generators (also delimiters of the city's eight sectors), and divided into two vertical levels, the lower scum one, where low wage workers live, and the high one, were executives, rich people etc. live and work.
Over time, a quasi-religious movement will develop affirming that Steorn's consumption of geomagnetic energy is actually causing Earth to die, and the most fanatic among these will form an eco-terrorist movement dedicated to the destruction of all Orbo generators. The funny thing is: this movement will be actually correct! Worse: not only will Steorn be in fact slowly destroying the world, but they will have also developed advanced genetics research on an alien found years before, using these discoveries to genetically enhance their own self-defense troops.
The history of our future proceeds in many details, but I'll make it short. Suffice it to say that one of these troops will discover all about his increased abilities, the alien, the Orbo generators destroying Earth, and will decide to accelerate the process, by causing a meteor to strike Earth. Earth itself, in a move indicating some kind of self-awareness, will fight back by redirecting its own geomagnetic field against the meteor, destroying it. The collateral effect of this, however, will be a magnetic induced disease over humanity, who will slowly start to die. A cure will be found, but not before much damage happens.
Due to all of this, the world will realize they must stop using geomagnetism as a source of energy, turn off all Orbo generators, and finally turn back to that old means of power generation left behind decades ago: petroleum. So much, in fact, that even the former leader of the anti-Orbo eco-terrorist group will become one of the earliest investors in oil extraction and oil-based energy production.
Then history will repeat itself.
The reasoning for this is simple. If you consider that God does whatever he wants, then if he has decided to create another intelligent species out there and not tell us, and decided to do so through evolution, direct creation, a mix of the two, or even some 3rd way, that's perfectly okay.
If/when aliens are found, the only thing that'll happen in these newer literalist churches is they agreeing that the older churches were right in this regards. Right after that, they all (newer and old ones alike) are most probably going to start implementing missionary projects to spread Christianity among the aliens, beginning by translating the Bible into the aliens native tongue (or tongues, as may be the case). And this is all there will be to it.
Now, of course you'll have isolated nuts thinking aliens must be killed "just because". But they won't be much different from the current nuts that think the same regarding blacks, muslims, atheist or whatever: a damaging, but non-representative minority.
This world we live in is crazy.
This is interesting. I offer hard data in my message, and someone classifies me as "troll", while other sets me as "overrated". I wonder what passes in the mind of someone who is so ideologically blind that he doesn't want to discuss the information in a straightforward way, but prefers to simply hide it so no one can see it. This remembers me of those cool students back in my Philosophy classes who talk all the time about how everyone should be allowed to speak their mind, but when one actually appears saying things they dislike, unplug the microphone or yell so much that no one can hear what he's saying. Censorship is freedom of speech, ostracizing your opposition is democracy, mob intimidation is to be intellectually sound? Cognitive dissonance at its best, it seems.
So, don't fool yourself. Right now, lack of OLPC notebooks is the least of the problems faced by Cuban children. Or, for that matter, by their parents.