Pleasantly surprised by Linux...for a couple of days...The Short Happy Life of Francis Linux Macomber
in [Setup]
|
Prev: boot problem with 2.6.32.11
Next: Pleasantly surprised by Linux...for a couple of days...TheShort Happy Life of Francis Linux Macomber
From: Homer on 9 Aug 2010 23:01 Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly: > Homer wrote: >> [3] >> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-copyright-cops-target-kids-schools-community-centers-081015/ >> > > I found the link you provided rather interesting: > > [quote] > To get this money the PRS go after people like the 61 year-old > mechanic Paul Wilson, who has worked alone at his garage for 23 > years since he was 15. Their maths is a bit off! :) > He can't afford the PRS license, so now he has to work in silence. .... > [/quote] .... > For a mechanic to listen in his shop would be considered a violation > because he is a business? This is shear nonsense. I'm in the process of starting up a new business, and one of the things I'm going to do is set up a music system in the shop playing /only/ Creative Commons licensed music, and then put a sarcastic notice in the shop window that has a PRS logo with a cross through it, and a Creative Commons logo underneath. If any of those PRS gangsters dare to come into my shop and start making demands and threats, I'm going to file criminal charges against them for extortion and demanding money with menaces. > I think the whole entertainment industry has gone bonkers. Ultimately they're only going to destroy themselves. Good riddance. -- K. http://slated.org ..---- | "Satisfaction with a current Android phone doesn't translate | into desire to buy a new Android phone" ~ ZnU, CSMA refugee `---- Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5 04:01:18 up 5 days, 5:11, 1 user, load average: 0.16, 0.07, 0.01
From: Hadron on 9 Aug 2010 23:13 Homer <usenet(a)slated.org> writes: > Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly: >> Homer wrote: > >>> [3] >>> http://torrentfreak.com/uk-copyright-cops-target-kids-schools-community-centers-081015/ >>> >> >> I found the link you provided rather interesting: >> >> [quote] >> To get this money the PRS go after people like the 61 year-old >> mechanic Paul Wilson, who has worked alone at his garage for 23 >> years since he was 15. > > Their maths is a bit off! :) > >> He can't afford the PRS license, so now he has to work in silence. > ... >> [/quote] > ... >> For a mechanic to listen in his shop would be considered a violation >> because he is a business? This is shear nonsense. Of course it is. Any charging for playing radio/music in any business where they are not directly earning from it (as, say, a bar or disco would benefit very directly) is bordering on criminal IMO. > > I'm in the process of starting up a new business, and one of the things > I'm going to do is set up a music system in the shop playing /only/ > Creative Commons licensed music, and then put a sarcastic notice in the > shop window that has a PRS logo with a cross through it, and a Creative > Commons logo underneath. If any of those PRS gangsters dare to come into > my shop and start making demands and threats, I'm going to file criminal > charges against them for extortion and demanding money with menaces. Is this before or after you release the GPL 3 "Free" Linux distribution you were showing off about?
From: Erik_jan on 10 Aug 2010 07:35 Homer had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 10-08-10 03:08: > > Talking of which, don't you find it a coincidence that the Renaissance; > the greatest period of creativity, discovery and invention in the whole > history of mankind; came crashing abruptly to an end at the exact same > time as the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies? > > And yet, ironically, the supposed purpose of monopolies is to "promote > the Progress of Science and useful Arts". > Dear Homer, I believe the period before the Renaissance was very creative, perhaps even more than during the Renaissance. During the Renaissance the paradigm of science, "natural philosphy", changed from observation based on aristotelian theory to experiment based on mathematical models. But before this the foundations were laid in medieval society by catching up with classical learning, and a lot of technical innovations that were by far superior to classical technology. The fields were practical: stirrups, harnesses for horses, agriculture, draining land, irrigating land, the plow, and lots more. And the secret of all this innovation? Sharing. The benedictine abbeys freely shared all their innovations with other monasteries. The same method was used in the medieval universities. All knowledge was shared. What the innovators got out of it, was the honor. Europe became the great innovator in technology, knowledge, and during the Renaissance in the field of natural philosophy by way of what we call "the open source model" of cooperation. The four freedoms of the modern GPL worked beautifully then. The benedictines and many others knew about the moral obligation to work for the "common wealth", the "commune bonum". Today, it seems, one does not work for the common wealth, look at the bankers e.g., but for the money, out of greed. so I endorse your argument and want to strengthen it even more. Greetings, Erik Jan.
From: Hadron on 10 Aug 2010 09:53 Erik_jan <ejvwaasdijk(a)msn.com> writes: > Homer had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 10-08-10 03:08: > >> >> Talking of which, don't you find it a coincidence that the Renaissance; >> the greatest period of creativity, discovery and invention in the whole >> history of mankind; came crashing abruptly to an end at the exact same >> time as the enactment of the Statute of Monopolies? >> >> And yet, ironically, the supposed purpose of monopolies is to "promote >> the Progress of Science and useful Arts". >> > > Dear Homer, > > I believe the period before the Renaissance was very creative, perhaps > even more than during the Renaissance. During the Renaissance the Prior to the Renaissance it was effectively the middle ages in Europe (the US had just been invented). The renaissance saw more creativity than ever before. And why? Because formal methods were used where people could build on the shoulders of giants. PS Anyone interested in a good roller coaster of a book series which covers this is pointed to Neil Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy starting with :- http://www.nealstephenson.com/quicksilver/ > paradigm of science, "natural philosphy", changed from observation based > on aristotelian theory to experiment based on mathematical models. But > before this the foundations were laid in medieval society by catching up > with classical learning, and a lot of technical innovations that were by > far superior to classical technology. The fields were practical: > stirrups, harnesses for horses, agriculture, draining land, irrigating > land, the plow, and lots more. And the secret of all this innovation? > Sharing. The benedictine abbeys freely shared all their innovations with > other monasteries. The same method was used in the medieval > universities. All knowledge was shared. What the innovators got out of > it, was the honor. Europe became the great innovator in technology, > knowledge, and during the Renaissance in the field of natural philosophy > by way of what we call "the open source model" of cooperation. The four > freedoms of the modern GPL worked beautifully then. The benedictines and > many others knew about the moral obligation to work for the "common > wealth", the "commune bonum". Today, it seems, one does not work for the > common wealth, look at the bankers e.g., but for the money, out of greed. > > so I endorse your argument and want to strengthen it even more. > > Greetings, > > Erik Jan.
From: Homer on 10 Aug 2010 16:41
Verily I say unto thee, that Erik_jan spake thusly: > Homer had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 10-08-10 03:08: > >> Talking of which, don't you find it a coincidence that the >> Renaissance; the greatest period of creativity, discovery and >> invention in the whole history of mankind; came crashing abruptly >> to an end at the exact same time as the enactment of the Statute of >> Monopolies? >> >> And yet, ironically, the supposed purpose of monopolies is to >> "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". [...] > I believe the period before the Renaissance was very creative, > perhaps even more than during the Renaissance. During the Renaissance > the paradigm of science, "natural philosphy", changed from > observation based on aristotelian theory to experiment based on > mathematical models. But before this the foundations were laid in > medieval society by catching up with classical learning, and a lot of > technical innovations that were by far superior to classical > technology. The fields were practical: stirrups, harnesses for > horses, agriculture, draining land, irrigating land, the plow, and > lots more. And the secret of all this innovation? Sharing. The > benedictine abbeys freely shared all their innovations with other > monasteries. The same method was used in the medieval universities. > All knowledge was shared. What the innovators got out of it, was the > honor. Europe became the great innovator in technology, knowledge, > and during the Renaissance in the field of natural philosophy by way > of what we call "the open source model" of cooperation. The four > freedoms of the modern GPL worked beautifully then. The benedictines > and many others knew about the moral obligation to work for the > "common wealth", the "commune bonum". Today, it seems, one does not > work for the common wealth, look at the bankers e.g., but for the > money, out of greed. There's been a gradual progression of monopolistic tendencies through history, culminating in formalisation with the advent of the Statute of Monopolies (primarily "patent" based), and later with the Statute of Anne (copyrights). However, prior to that formalisation, monopolies were infrequently issued on an ad hoc basis by oligarchical mandate, rather than by a democratic process of common law, were usually not justified (or justifiable) in any moral sense, and rarely had a particularly broad scope. Then, as now, the only motive offered was the perception of necessity, which as William Pitt the Younger once put it: "is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves". The premise of state-protected monopolies is basically incentive, or put less diplomatically - bribes. The idea being that a certain faction of society (industrial capitalist), who might only be motivated by greed, have a disincentive to do anything unless they can do so exclusively. The lawmakers accepted that this faction were poorly motivated, and that monopolies were morally unjustified (no inalienable right), but they also recognised that these industrialists, by and large, held all the power and wealth, and therefore conceded moral principles for what they vaguely hoped would be the greater good - expedited and enhanced invention and creation. The reality is somewhat different. Although "invention and creation" has most certainly been /expedited/, it's highly debatable that it's been "enhanced". Instead of exercising moderation, and showing gratitude for the artificial privilege of state-protected monopoly which they've been granted, industrial capitalists have exploited it ruthlessly to produce vast portfolios of trivial "inventions", which they then use as weapons of totalitarianism against the rest of society, to the point that just singing to oneself in public is seen as some kind of violation of "rights". What began as the hope of encouraging progress, has become the single greatest /inhibitor/ of progress, and one of the greatest threats to human culture. Indeed it's hard to see why anyone even felt it necessary to instigate this sort of "promotion", given that the era when it was introduced was already the most creative and inventive in history. This is why I advocate the abolition of all forms of Intellectual Property rights. They should never have been introduced in the first place, and they provide an order of magnitude more disadvantages than advantages. They were introduced only to satisfy greed, so it's hardly surprising that they only result in the further advancement greed. > so I endorse your argument and want to strengthen it even more. Thanks. -- K. http://slated.org ..---- | "Satisfaction with a current Android phone doesn't translate | into desire to buy a new Android phone" ~ ZnU, CSMA refugee `---- Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5 21:41:04 up 5 days, 22:50, 0 users, load average: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 |