I am not trying to find a business environment that's better in some generic sense. I'm trying to find one where I can do this startup in particular and not get Netscaped.
I'll tell you what's wrong with this article. McCumber tells us that
Americans' traditional demand for autonomy is really just a government
conspiracy cooked up by RAND. Okay all you NYT commenters nodding in
agreement---really, the clamor of the present-day Ugly American to
repeal Obamacare and reduce the tax burden and rein in the EPA and the
Federal Reserve and decriminalize marijuana---all these Americans
groaning about the financial and regulatory weight of the federal
government and its increasing impingements on our freedom---is
actually also a GOVERNMENT conspiracy?
Folks, here we have a university professor who, may he delve into
Hegel, Marx, or Quine, rather unsurprisingly comes up with the same
standard NYT lecture---you know, the one about why Americans do not
really WANT what they want (and don't deserve it, anyway, because
they're too self absorbed.) Oh, and besides, W.V.O Quine criticized
Rational Choice Theory. Now, WVO Quine was one of the top ten minds of
the 20th century, so it might seem portentous to cite his authority
here, however he seems to have been against many things that would be
dear to most readers of this paper, including public education. Here's
a wikipedia link:
Hey, I'm not a particle physicist, but I've read a bunch of books by people who think the universe is a computer. (Three Scientists and Their Gods, A New Kind Of Science, and The Recursive Universe (this last is out of print and much better than Wolfram's newer but more turgid ANKOS.)
I don't think the universe is a computer either, but I don't think this guy understands what that would mean anyway.
From the article: "I just find it obvious that pretty much by definition, discrete objects are always less fundamental and less complete than the continuous ones. A discrete description of some object or phenomenon is always an approximation."
Now the whole thrust of the "computer-universe-ism" people's argument, if I read them correctly, is that the universe is really a discrete structure, in which case a discrete model of said structure would not be ANY kind of approximation. I.e. to what are the integers (a discrete structure) a (supposedly poor) approximation? What about the two-element set {0,1} or (say) groups? (The group theory bit is a trick for the author.)
We'd better leave these questions to be answered by empirical data---or if we need philosophers to chime in, better ones than this.
This whole situation is pretty revealing about Dropbox. If hosting software that COULD be used to violate the TOS were also a violation of the TOS, and if Dropbox had been in the practice of banning such files, then 2 outcomes would have obtained:
1. The system for banning files would not send out copyright infringement notices automatically. It would be set up for banning things like source code that could be used to violate the TOS.
2. Someone on the support team you claim the system was designed for, would have done the ban, instead of you having to come in and implement "higher-level business logic" by using the ban system for something besides copyright violations.
"We removed the ability to share the project source code because it enables communications with our servers in a manner that is a violation of our Terms of Service."
Arash, you're confusing the software and its potential uses as if they were the same thing, which is standard DMCA brain damage. It's the FUTURE communication with the servers that COULD violate the terms via such communications, IF it actually happens because of an unknown person (possibly not the hoster) using the software at some (unspecified) later time. If that TOS-violating communication actually HAPPENS then you can gleefully shutter HIS account. You don't get to ban the software itself, if the hoster has permission (via MIT license) to host the file. Illegal sharing of copyrighted files is what's prohibited, and that is what the "automatic DMCA takedown" suggests---to wit, that your banning-files-by-hash system is designed to take down copyrighted files in response to DMCA takedown notices. If it was meant to ban files you don't like, you would have had a clue that it would send an erroneous DMCA message about the file.
So it's obvious you just wanted to ban the file. Can you really cite the TOS language that says hosting software that COULD be used for TOS-violating communications with Dropbox, is also a violation of the TOS?
I also think it would be interesting for readers of this forum to see whether or not you've already quietly changed your TOS to cover this case (or will soon do so.)