Garoad

You're (like most people) focusing on a utilitarian type of view, which is useful, but it can be tricky compared to a logical/moral view. But if we're to focus on the utilitarian view, to favor copyright on those grounds (the benefits outweigh the negatives), we'd have to assume a few things that there's little historical evidence for: -IP (Intellectual Property) helps society (innovation & creation) rather than hindering or harming it -Artistic talent / innovation would not be exercised in the absence of copyright & patent (respectively) -It's (nearly) impossible to financially profit from your creations, in the absence of IP (i.e. there are absolutely no alternative business models from the ones that exist today - IMO this is an absurd position to take) There's one well researched book which debunks these conventional assumptions by Boldrin and Levine named Against Intellectual Monopoly (free online download). Their conclusion after years of research (which few people even entertain) is that the evils and damage have historically far outweighed the alleged benefits. I'd bet that your hypothetical doesn't prevent the original author from getting paid. If copyright were gone today, and JK Rowling wrote another Harry Potter book, she would still make an obscene amount of money selling it to some big publisher. Why would a well known author go to a tiny publisher which has little capacity for distribution? But I agree that the changes to current law you suggest would certainly be huge improvements. Any reduction in the power of IP law is a good thing (not that it ever gets reduced). So, since we're speaking on utilitarian terms, there's two things I want to point out: -The alleged benefit to society, and creators/innovators, is vastly overestimated and very questionable -The known (and unknown) harm to society is vastly underestimated (and based on the book I referenced here, the harm is serious and unquestionable)

If you put that up I'll see if I can help figure it out. If it's something going wrong with an SDK (.net) call, we should be able to isolate the cause still.

I'm not a VB person but can't you use the debugger to step through the code doing the parsing line by line to see where it's getting stuck? Seems like some infinite loop. Edit - Tried grabbing the source to debug this myself but I think only an old version is posted.

Looks like there's an issue with enabling certain mods, using some mods such as http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/caterpillar-tracks/ , http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/28273-0-19-M-M-M-%28Modular-Magnetic-Module%29-0-20 or ISA_MapSat_Unofficial. When enabled the manager locks up and says "Scanning Virtual KSP Folder" at the bottom. Needs to be killed in task manager to break out of it. I think it's from the recent change, since the previous version worked when I was enabling those mods. In most cases it seems to be mods where the part config files start with comments, or in the Caterpillar tracks case it looks like this which I imagine might throw off parsing: PART(OvalInvertableOneSidedTrack)

Probably just a subtle tinted red or green would be nice, something like #75FF9E or #FF695B. Yeah, trimming that upload_date from the zip filename is more than sufficient. (Hard to complain for a free tool!) Edit - wow, already got all of that in there... pretty cool, thanks for taking up the suggestions!

I can confirm that the duplicate "PART {" regexp bug is effecting more than just the Kethane mod. It's kind of a big issue in the current version. Or at least the version I have which I think is the latest. A few other ideas for features to toss in: -Highlight enabled mods green in the list or disabled mods red -(already mentioned before) Trim the "upload_date_" portion of downloaded Spaceport zip files, if it's present (although this is admittedly not that important..)

Title says it all

Drakes, that's terrible (and yet another example of a hidden, un-measurable cost of IP destroying society). The only way I can see that justified would be using a non-disclosure agreement, which would be a time-limited (hopefully..) contract you'd agree to upon hiring. What happens if you need to find another job in that same specific area? You're bound by NDA and unable to do so, or even to create your own product independently. It's convenient for suppressing the competition, that's for sure. But I don't have a strong opinion on the topic of NDA agreements--patent and copyright are very different things. I have no problem with trade secrets, but I'm not sure if these NDAs go too far either. Nuke - You're probably right that government doesn't call it stealing, at least in their official texts. I bet we can find some government "officials" or politicians who do call it stealing, though. The word probably gets used in court cases (dunno). I have no faith in the logical consistency of any branch of government. Yes the public's mindset is probably the root of the problem. How this came to be historically, I'd love to know. It must have started early on, because even most (all?) US founders believed in this concept; of course they didn't have the benefit of hindsight, new examples of problems that we have today, and of course the research data showing the damage and disproving the supposed benevolence of IP law. I'd still argue that the law is a problem though, because it's an enabling tool which allows people to subvert competition and obtain private monopolies. Without the law, mindset wouldn't matter. Without the government's willing participation, these people like the RIAA/MPAA would simply be loudmouthed bullies (and would be held accountable for breaking the law when using aggression to intimidate others). Creative Commons is a fantastic development. If I thought it had any chance, I would be petitioning Squad to alter the forum and SpacePort rules to mandate something like this Creative Commons license for graphics/other and GPL for code. Nobody is making money off work here, it's entirely just generosity and a desire to see the community thrive that drives it, so it should be a no-brainer. Also this disgraceful portion in the SpacePort rules needs to go. IANAL, but this sounds to me like they are restricting the right of the uploader to distribute their files from any other location. I believe this is the reason the Kethane mod is not available on SpacePort. I don't blame them either. Why, why, why put that restriction in there?

That's great and thanks for responding. I was thinking of creating a utility just like this, but I can see there's no need. You could also use that date as an additional metadata column about the plugin to show when it was uploaded (in addition to version).

When you download a zip from Spaceport (let's assume we don't have the download browser plugin), will this utility detect the file structure contained in the zip and adjust accordingly? i.e. Some mods have a GameData folder at the root, but some start with a mod-named folder. How does this determine the name & version of a mod? What does the utility actually do when enabling/disabling mods? I guess there's an archive folder (somewhere?) and it just copies or deletes folders in the KSP install dir when enabled? Or does it move the mod folders from an archived location into the KSP GameData folder? Edit: Okay, playing with it answered some of those questions. How about an enhancement which automatically removes the "uploads_2013_05_" portion of SpacePort filenames?

First--the downgrading option for Steam I wasn't aware of, and is awesome. (I was one of those forced to update because I stupidly bought the game on Steam.) All I was pointing out before was that I'm sure the OP wasn't being rude or impolite. I also prefer to wait for the 'official' updates (don't feel like having to replace the quick fix with the official later on, or worse, forget to re-update it) so it's not unreasonable to inquire as to whether you should just wait a few days (if the ETA is "soon"). Since the official fixes for the mods I use probably aren't all coming soon, no big deal, but that means it's worth 'downgrading' to .19 for now. Can't blame us for wanting a bit of info to manage our "launch schedules"!

That's obvious, but it's not unreasonable or impolite to ask when the creator expects to start or complete the needed fixes. Especially since nobody else is allowed to fix it, according to the rules, even if they're able and willing.

I think that'd be great too - I've heard the Dwarf Fortress soundsense track that KSP also uses is good, but I've heard it sooooo many times, it has to go (without dumping all the other KSP tracks which I've barely heard just because I can't take the one anymore). Then again I think there's some bug I experience too which causes sound crackling when music is playing. Boo...

There's an "MMO" called Second Life with a physics, build, and scripting system which might fit that criteria. There were even some "rocketry" groups there years ago. As for the "testing" and getting special functionality to work, you'd have to focus mostly on the scripting aspect. A lot of "weird" stuff in there too though (I won't elaborate here, lol), which I guess is one of the reasons I pretty much moved on. I liked it much more in the early days when the community was tiny/nerdier and mostly made up of creative or developer types, but I guess they had to open up the floodgates of the Internet and go mainstream to be sustainable. I think it's still "free to play", though.

Here's mine: There's one thing it can't do, but you did say just about anything... I can't believe I'm the first one here to post that. Did I miss it?

The docking port solution is what I've been trying, but it's harder than it sounds. Just turning the engines to be the correct angle is a little tough (although I manged a transport design which seems to work). Ideally I'd need to use some robotics stuff, but I keep having weird physics problems. Can't really do any more testing today though, since @#$%#$% Steam auto-updated KSP even though I told it NOT to automatically update, and now it won't start (probably due to mods). Thanks Steam!

Well I completely agree with that, it's certainly a lesser evil. I use the term because of the degree to which IPs proponents have managed to convince virtually everyone that this is necessary, justified and moral, when extremely strong arguments can be made to the contrary. This is something I disgagree with the founders regarding, although I definitely agree that a shorter term monopoly is preferable to the absurdly long ones of today. The concern for rewarding innovators and creators is a common one, but there is very little (if any) actual empirical evidence to suggest that this is even necessary. The notion that inventors and artists would simply quit and get a regular day job--because they aren't guaranteed the right to use force to stop others from doing the same or similar--goes against what I think is human nature. Sure progress had been made, but how much of that can be attributed to IP versus other major catalysts such as increased respect for property rights (which does much more to guarantee financial gain from your work), liberalism (in the sense of personal freedoms or "liberties"), increases in trade, science, and of course capitalist competition? There's little hard evidence (not based on what people or politicians "think") that it provides any net benefit at all, and there's a massive cost to society which takes no effort to see. Think about all the money which goes into the legal system (lawyers!) and government offices simply to keep the system running. That's part of the cost--it effectively diverts all those resources from our economy, which could have gone to much more productive uses such as scientific research, farming or manufacturing. The example of an author is a good one! A real life example I like is that during the pre-copyright American era, copyright law was enforced for English authors in England, but not across the Atlantic. Authors did get paid, in both markets, and would often make *more* money from American publishers in exchange for early access. They were paid up front, and the payment would often be greater than what they were paid in royalties over years in England. A major point being that (besides evidence that copyright didn't help anyone) a different business model evolved. Great points. It sounds like you're basically just asking that the historical fact that X created Y be recorded honestly. I wouldn't go as far as calling this a *moral* right but I agree that society should tell the truth about history. One might argue that JK Rowling would not have made as many millions on her Harry Potter books without copyright--and they'd be correct about that. She'd still be filthy rich now--simply from the sheer popularity. (Those concerned about wealth disparity should take note!) But does anyone really believe that she wouldn't have bothered writing the books at all for a lesser portion of wealth? Or that without copyright, publishers wouldn't still pay her a fortune today for a copy of her latest work? Absent IP, she may only earn a mere few million to live off for the rest of her life - boo hoo, over this? As I mentioned below, that exact situation did happen regularly during the years where copyright law was being born. It didn't appear in Europe or the US simultaneously, and there isn't any evidence of any "boom" in creativity after such laws were put in place. (Actually there's a good deal of evidence against such a boom.) In your KSP example, even if someone did this - Squad has the source code, all the expertise, all of the current user base, and will most definitely be the preferred company which publishers choose to work with over some shumck with no expertise. Can a 3rd party really compete effectively with this? Can they provide better support, better (or any) updates, and better additional content? Another interesting example would be the Linux market. Redhat (and others) sells a free open source operating system for relatively cheap, offering support and other perks. Conventional wisdom says that such a company couldn't possibly exist since there aren't any copyright or patent rights being enforced on Linux--but there it is, it works. You hit on some of the worst aspects of patents, and yeah we're going down that path--it's only going to get worse from here out. And society will suffer greatly (people will literally die) as a result. Actually, from what I've read, people in Africa who can't afford expensive patented drugs (only out of reach due to the patent monopolies) already are dying - disgusting! Why not? I don't see any flames; I think we're adult enough here that we don't need to censor discussion. It's not like this is going to change any laws (lol) so it shouldn't offend anyone... if it does that much, it might be a good thread to just skip. It's only a grey area if you haven't examined the topic in great depth (more importantly, hard evidence and philosophical justifications). This is pretty much the standard conventional wisdom, but to name just a few problems with it: -All innovations are based on past innovations - literally, science would grind to a halt if ideas were universally treated as "property"; if all inventions throughout history were patented, we'd probably still be in the "dark ages". -Great amounts (if not most) of creative work is "similar" or builds on the past work of others. There isn't a non-arbitrary, objective way to judge similarities, either. -Government calls it theft, yet after this crime is committed the originator still has full use of their creation. For theft to occur there has to be a deprivation of the use of property, so this has to be something other than theft. -Is a business guaranteed profit for the hard work of setting up their business? Obviously not, so why should society bear the cost of enforcing an arbitrarily length & scope private monopoly on something which was given away? Presumably if we create something we wish to sell and profit from, we wouldn't carelessly just send it to anyone without at least a non-disclosure agreement. If a "regular" business must develop a functioning business model to survive, why should those in certain other (IP) businesses not be required to develop their own functioning business model for profit? -Stealing an object deprives the original owner of the use of that object; not so with ideas or patterns. Non-physical concepts or patterns are not "scarce", therefore the moral justifications that brought about the *need* for traditional property laws do not apply. The whole reason we have property law in the first place is to work around this problem of scarcity (the economic sense of the term), and prevent the fighting over resources which would result with the complete lack of private property. This is one of my favorite arguments against IP, because it gets into the moral/philosophical justification and principles, which should be the basis for any rational system of justice and law. I could go on, but this is way too long already. I really didn't expect such a volume of response.

Cranes seem to be pretty... limited in what they can lift before flipping and/or breaking. Or causing the physics engine to bug out and blow everything up. I guess I can try experimenting with a skycrane (attempts so far ended up with a rubber-band like effect which didn't end well, but that was only at Mun gravity...) Yeah I am testing in a tough case on Kerbin 1g, but some of this stuff weighs tons. Because I'm a masochist, I'm trying to find a temporary and re-usable system. In other words if I ever need to move stuff around a second time, I want a way to re-attach the mobility components. I don't mind having some docking ports attached permanently. I can tell the wife that they're some kind of new-Kerbin-age artsy crap that the pod manufacturers included for free. I think for my next test run I'll try using a small specialized crane design which should let you drive right up to a radial engine at a standard height, grab it with KAS, undock it, and drive away. Theoretically* then I could re-attach it to the crane, drive up to the mini-clamp-o-tron and attempt to dock. I managed to do this ONCE with a kind of "traditional" crane design, but not only is it almost impossible to turn the thing to the exact angle you need to dock, but the one time I did do this successfully everything just sort of blew up for some unknown reason. (I guess since the crane + radial engine + HOME base pod were all technically docked and the physics freaked out.) *probably not

The wife wants to redecorate this year to turn the bedroom window away from the local spaceship graveyard and get a better view of the Duna sunrise. I'm not allowed to install any permanent engines to the pods because they make it look "like a trashy mobile home". I didn't risk bringing up the alternative of literally mounting wheels to the thing. I told her the laws of physics would cause extreme difficulty, but she not accepting no for an answer... I'm allowed to attach stuff to do this, but only if it's temporary and painted purple to match the external radiation shielding. What I have in mind is moving heavy pieces of 3m Duna (or Mun) base components for short distances, with precision. (Would probably require some RCS too but I guess I could install that permanently.) With the end goal of attempting to attach all this crap together somehow. This will most likely conclude as a miserable failure... which is why I want to try it. Suggestions? (Is this possible with KAS?)

This came up as a result of a thread (page 2-3) where an open source KSP plugin with no license specified needed an update and it was/is unclear as to whether a modified version or even a fix (in what form?) could be distributed. I didn't want to sidetrack that thread, so I'm taking my IP bashing here instead. Personally I believe IP--patent & copyright in particular--cannot be justified on any basis. They are only micro-monopolies, enforced arbitrarily by government lawyers and bureaucrats. Nor does IP fit the definition of real property. You cannot "steal" an idea, technique, or a concept. You can't own such things, and it's not possible to deprive someone of the use of their knowledge, as it is with stealing for example a car. Copyright is most often used by powerful bully organizations such as the MPAA or RIAA to protect outdated business models - to the detriment of all consumers, and (most) artists as well. It's not justified on a utilitarian basis, that society benefits overall, either. (Utilitarianism isn't morally defensible in itself anyway.) Entire industries were built in eras with little or no concept of IP - actually this is the case for most inventions and ideas throughout history. People often justify patents by saying that inventors need an "incentive" to invent. But I can't imagine how anyone could think this after considering it seriously. People invent and create all the time with no expectation of ANY compensation of any kind (one example might be KSP modders...), and obviously virtually every major invention would have been invented and created by someone, if only because they wanted it for themselves. This system (patent/copyright) is one of the most evil and harmful things the government does, and I truly believe it should be abolished entirely. It's getting worse as time goes on, too. I feel strong contempt every time I'm forced to dance around and waste my time on this immoral, stupid set of rules. All this is from a US-law perspective, but I imagine the way this works in other countries is fairly similar. Since this is probably the first time most reading this have even heard such a thing anyway, I guess I'll stop here.

Oh god, I'm reminded why I hate "copyright" and "patent*" (*luckily not the case here, for the record) so much. Everyone suffers as a result of the monopoly. An even bigger tragedy is that the original author would probably welcome a fix. Maybe I'll start a thread in the off topic forum about this later, I shouldn't complain about it here. What if someone were to write a different plugin which does the same thing? Inevitably it would be extremely similar--even more so for me, since I already have the knowledge of how this plugin was written. I don't know what to say... I guess the best I can do (stupid as this is, we CAN create a "derivative" work for ourselves if we don't distribute) is explain that you just need to toggle CheatOptions.AllowPartClipping to true or false on a keypress within the Update() method. What I did was so simple I feel silly even calling it a "fix". That's a "quick" fix anyway. But I feel bad for the non-programmers who can't do this themselves. Are we certain that I can't even post a code clip? Ex. replace XYZ code with ZYX? It's only a few lines.

Is there any way to change the KSP music? It's not that it's bad - and I don't really want to disable it (all) - the problem is that one of the tracks is identical to a track used in Dwarf Fortress (Soundsense utility), and I've heard it sooooo many times I can't take it anymore!!! Also it kind of reminds me of Dwarf Fortresses when I should be thinking Kerbal Science... Stupid problem, I know... So can it be changed at all? Didn't see any obvious files to mess with.

Doh! I just realized I missed this in the first post! "- never even having to visit the Kerbin launch pad!" That'll be awesome if you can pull it off eventually (needless to say)...

If I understand the Orbital Construction mod properly, the way it works is by basically "teleporting" a ship which was *actually* spawned and launched at the regular VAB (breaks immersion). After seeing that I figured that actually "spawning" new ships outside of the launchpad wasn't possible yet. But this has a "Load Ship" option in the gui. Does this actually create new ships without having to use the KSC launchpad? If so, that's awesome!

That's a good question - can I? IP law is absolute rubbish in my opinion, but I don't want to get banned for some "intellectual property" violation or something. I should do it right first, anyway - like I said I just did a "quick fix" (toggle only, no momentary CTRL mode) and should probably test a bit more. But yeah I'm happy to share if that's allowed.