A reasonable space must be left between each car to provide enough extra slack to handle unexpected events like braking and slowing. When people follow too closely, this slack is all but eliminated thus causing each unexpected event's effect to become magnified. A quick tap of the brakes causes a chain reaction resulting in a traffic jam. Leaving enough space to handle an unexpected event provides each driver extra time to react.
TFA covered this. While it was advantagous (to the group) to break many rules, the notable exception was it was always benefical to allow breaking time.
I remember when I could bring down an OS X machine in Flash 8. It's not just Windows, it's not just recently, and it's not just Adobe (see Macromedia).
The biggest arguments here seem to apply to academics no more than to any other field. Why allow stifling of creativity elsewhere?
Well, the quote and its arguments aren't from the article. The article glosses over why copyright law should be changed, and instead focuses on how academic publishing would likely continue to exist at current levels if copyright law ended tomorrow. And, since copyright provides no incentives in academic publishing, it should be abolished.
But it took until 1984 for him to see what the real desktop computing revolution would look like, and it took him more than a decade after that in order to make a Mac knock-off that didn't completely suck donkey balls.
You mean Windows 95? Yeah, poor Gates. While Apple was making computers that looked pretty and people wanted to use, Microsoft was making computers that did vital work and people had to use.
I'd dare-say that Gates's plan was cleverer than Jobs's.
I find that Bing is better than Google 1/3 of the time. So, I tend to go to Bing after checking the first page of Google sites.
If Bing was more consistent (it's quality seems to oscilate as it fine-tunes the algorithm/corpus) I may have switched already. I was contemplating it after looking at a series of searches it won* at, but then the results went to crap for some reason. Since then, it's been iffy.
* Search engines win if the site I happen to want appears earlier in their list than their competitors. Especially if I didn't know about the site ahead of time.
Do you not get the point that by running in a browser, it essentially runs anywhere?
My laptop runs anywhere. Including places there is no internet connection.
Further, by running in the browser, the application will always be the most current version.
And that's a good thing? Later versions of iTunes start forcing Safari. RealPlayer was great, until a specific version number. Office 2003 is better than 2007. I upgrade when I want to. I don't want bloat, crazy new interfaces, removed features that I use, to use something before SP2, and certianly not without my okay. When someone else controls your device, they can do whatever they want, including delete your copy of 1984.
Would you rather have Google or Facebook the steward?
Neither.
Google very much tries to be open and "not evil."
All marketing hype. What do they do that is less evil than Microsoft? Seriously... what is less evil about Google?
People are already losing out on jobs (and rightly so) because of the stupid-ass stuff they willingly post about themselves on MySpace and Facebook.
So, because other people don't care about their privacy, I shouldn't? I don't post stupid-ass stuff on MySpace/Facebook.
blockquote But if it became known that, for instance, Google was releasing your private email to hiring companies or PIs, they'd be outed, everyone would stop using Gmail, and Google stuff would go down the toilet
It would be known too late for most people, even if it were revealed today. And it would be mail, search history, the google-analytics tracking cookies, etc.
And that's assuming it became public. I think the US Government could probably keep it quiet.
Apparently, everyone else wanted a draggable map.
Javascript was but one way to achieve this.
If you don't like it, find an alternate map site that doesn't use JS. If there aren't enough people like you to make it worth it for such a site to exist, then you really have no place to complain.
My point was that Google is forcing me to use Javascript, and not just on their site. They're pushing a technology. You're saying that technology is good... well the.doc format was far better than what it superceded. So Microsoft is(was) also good for pushing Office.
If someone sends me a GD file, I'll tell them to re-send it in a format I can read, like PDF
Except it exists in the cloud... if you cannot open it you never know you got it. Then you get in trouble for being unresponsive.
I thought it was because it's a lot cheaper to throw up some cheap fabric-covered erector-set walls instead of getting contractors in to put in studs, hang drywall, paint, etc
You'd think. But it's not. Because there are only so many cubical wall makers, and they know the value to consumers is actually higher than that of offices. Because of the tax savings.
doubt there's any tax benefits; they probably do it because some moron thought it'd be a great idea for everyone to have no privacy at work
You can lease cube farms. This is entirely deductable. Building walls is a capital investment. It has to be depreciated over X years.
Sorry, it's going to suck. Who decides how to architect it, how to maintain it, what improvements to put in? What widget library will it use? What package management system (if any)? This is called "design by committee", and always results in a pile of crap.
2/3 vote of Jobs, Gates and Linus. Any patch that 2/3 of them want gets accepted. Give them a budget to hire whatever aides they want and let them delegate their vote among their aides as they please.
Althought, I don't know
Competition is the only way to get the best results; that's why Linux is improving at such a rapid rate (granted, it had a long way to rise), while Windows has gotten pretty stagnant and is just trying to push pretty UI improvements. But even then, who decides what UI improvements to use?
Competition is why Windows has a 90% marketshare. Competition is just not technical proficeny. And a polyculture is why there is so little support for Linux, when it has the same marketshare as OSX.
And with nationalization, which country gets to control it?
The US pays all the bills of having a committee of three and their aides. Patches come from companies/individuals with a vested interest in the additions (or like open-source, altruism/fame/resume experience).
It'll be Open-Source, so I feel that other countries won't inheritly distrust it. Besides ICANN is already under US government control.
Life is not a game. You want to show people the source... neat. You want to not... also neat. Yes, the GPL needs copyright law to force people to reopen the source- but is that a good thing?
Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.
These corporate moneymongers are sad that they can only buy 3 boats this year instead of two
lolwut? Why would someone be sad that they could afford more boat than they originally expected?
Because if they only have two, then they can clearly have "his and hers" boats. Now that there are three, they have to compromise on the name and usage of the third. Plus, have you seen how hard it is to split a boat in the case of a divorce?
True. But the rest of your comment focuses on improved Linux hardware support (my hardware is already supported) and hurting Microsoft. It doesn't help me to hurt Microsoft. At all. I don't hate them for no real reason.
Same in an business with say 30 000 licenses. They will evaluate OpenOffice, and ask the Microsoft sales guy: What else do you offer?
Where did OpenOffice come from? ChromeOS is all about the cloud, and GoogleDocs. And MS Office offers a lot above GoogleDocs.
? So what if some big company knows what I look for in google searches? What are they going to do with that information? Offer me targeted advertising? So what?
Well, suppoe that company is contracted by the federal government to make a no-fly list? Or what if they start sending unsubtle ads based on your porn preferences via the mail (oh, they got your snail mail address because they bought it from your ISP)? Or what if they use it to decide whether you get a job (again, associated you with a person via your ISP... or maybe webmail)? Or when a PI uses it in a divorce proceeding?
I have a problem with companies advertising to me, but I have a much bigger problem with any of the above, and I'm sure I could think of more if I had to.
So what if they use JavaScript? Everyone does! In fact, it's the only way to do a lot of things inside a browser, such as having maps you can click and drag.
I don't want a map I can click on and drag. I just want to see a map that shows the line between my starting and ending location. MapQuest used to do this without Javascript, until GoogleMaps made them forced to revamp their site to be GoogleMaps Lite.
Everyone does use JavaScript... now. But everyone does use the.doc format now as well. Javascript owes as much to Google's pushing as the.doc format owes to Microsoft's.
It's not like someone's going to email you stuff in a Google format and you have to use Google software to read it or else lose your job.
This already happened to me. A GoogleDocs file. Of course, GoogleDocs never worked for me, even when I allow it Javascript access, so I couldn't open it. I got in a lot of trouble.
I expect it to happen in even bigger companies in the future.
With you, it's personal.... Was it copyrighted, or patented?
They violated a copyright of mine.
But I didn't like Google before they violated my copyright either, so it wasn't personal. I dislike them for gathering tons of information on me, for creating GoogleDocs which I have to use even though it is beyond broken, and other reasons I've outlined.
Every decade there's movement and growth in something
My point was every decade there's this growth in SaaS and cloud computing. It's more like every five years I suppose. And it never catches on. Not every decade there is a fad.
. If customers don't like SaaS, they won't buy it, and will switch vendors if they have to
Citation Needed. It's only if they dislike SaaS enough, and they understand it well enough to make that decision. And there is a reasonable competitor that offers non-SaaS.
With the way so many businesses like to lease things instead of buying them outright, even though it costs more in the long run, I really don't see why they wouldn't like SaaS
There are a lot of tax-benefits with leasing hard assets that don't apply to leasing software. That's one reason companies use cubical farms... it's only cheaper because, via strange tax convolutions, they can lease the cube farms and not buy the materials and labor to subdivide into offices.
So you like the idea of MS having a monopoly and everyone being required to run Windows, even if they raise the price to $1000/computer?
No. That's why I said nationalize it. Free to every taxpayer. With source that anyone can look at, but with a well-regulated and monitored patch approval process.
And if it's Windows, whatever. We'll deal.
You don't need to help family over phone lines. Tell them to call Dell
I like my family. I like being able to help them. It fustrates me when I cannot.
, it only refers to light with a particular wavelength, roughly 380 to 750 nm, which our retinas happen to be sensitive to.
Our eyes happen to be sensitive to. Our retinas are sensitive to UV, but the cornea filters out some UV light: as much as we normally see absent looking at the Sun, etc.
Google might try to advertise to me, but the only ads I ever see from them are inconspicuous text ads which I just ignore,
I'm not worried about Google advertising to me. I worried about when they decide to sell their profile of me.
Unlike MS, Google doesn't try to force me into using any particular technology or software (or more importantly, OS). I can use all online Google stuff just fine in Firefox on Linux.
They don't sell an OS (yet), so of course they are OS neutral. But they do try to foist JavaScript on you. And they're pushing Chrome (the Browser) pretty aggressively. Going to get more aggressive later.
Google just wants me to look at some unobtrusive text ads in exchange for using an excellent webmail service and search engine for free.
And gather information about you that they own.
. So far, Google hasn't given me any reason to believe they're going to do anything beyond this to screw me over, whereas MS has done countless things to screw their users over from Day 1.
Actually, when MS was as young as Google is, they were as revered by techies much like Google is today.
As for Google screwing people over, Google stole my intellectual property. It took a lawsuit to get a settlement from them.
However, apparently most people don't agree with us, as evidenced by the huge growth in cloud computing and SaaS (software as a service) lately
Every decade there is this movement and growth. And every decade it fails.
vendors probably wouldn't be going down this road if all their customers were firmly against it
Vendors don't really know what customers want... they only have an idea. And they'll do SaaS if it doesn't piss their customers off too much (as it generates recurring income) rather than only if the customer wants it.
I probably won't use it myself, but anything to break up the OS market and restore competition is a good thing.
Eek! I hate the idea of multiple OSes. I don't care which one wins, but can the UN just vote one the winner, nationalize the company that made it and get on with life? There's no real innovation, that was all done years ago. Having many OSes just make application development harder, helping family over the phone lines harder, and installing software harder. I just want write-once run-anywhere damnit.
Chrome OS has the potential to hit Windows 7 hard,
Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.
That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.
Why? It's airgapped, so no need for security updates.
Anyway, you have to trust the vendors who wrote the patch if you are already running the software they wrote. The government can require the source and compile it themselves if they need to examine it for backdoors (they just promise never to release the source).
And when refitting hardware on a submarine runs about 10x the cost of changing software, there is a strong incentive to make the exception.
Whatever else you want to say about the military, they tend to do things right regardless of cost. They'll spend... lets just say a few orders of magnitude more for hardware then I could pick it up in a store. But it'll be resilent and more secure, so it's probably worth it.
A prototype Bumbleebee Transformer robot was built, and is available to the public. Unfortunately, it's still in pre-alpha, as the autonomy and transformation circuits seem inoperable and unaccessable.
As long as it didn't show what you are drawing on the screen, yup, it's prior art.
I have a schizoid view of software patents. Patents that repurpose well known concepts ("Look, its an X... ON THE WEB" or "It's mouse gestures on a touchpad") are obviously bad. But on the other hand, having protection for novel ideas makes sense. 18 years may be too long, but inventing the GUI was worthy of patent protection (even if it never got it).
First, the patent was filed in 1999, so 2003 doesn't really matter.
Second, the patent doesn't cover touchscreens, it covers using gestures on touchscreens. That is, the panning of the iPhone, or using the finger swiping gesture to change pages.
I read the word "effectively". I understand the word "effectively". I thought that by addressing the effective competitors (via both a list and proclaiming that I had owned several of them), that I would preempt such knee-jerk reactions as yours.
Many people owned MP3 players before the iPod. I certainly did.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA covered this. While it was advantagous (to the group) to break many rules, the notable exception was it was always benefical to allow breaking time.
I remember when I could bring down an OS X machine in Flash 8. It's not just Windows, it's not just recently, and it's not just Adobe (see Macromedia).
Well, the quote and its arguments aren't from the article. The article glosses over why copyright law should be changed, and instead focuses on how academic publishing would likely continue to exist at current levels if copyright law ended tomorrow. And, since copyright provides no incentives in academic publishing, it should be abolished.
You mean Windows 95? Yeah, poor Gates. While Apple was making computers that looked pretty and people wanted to use, Microsoft was making computers that did vital work and people had to use.
I'd dare-say that Gates's plan was cleverer than Jobs's.
I find that Bing is better than Google 1/3 of the time. So, I tend to go to Bing after checking the first page of Google sites.
If Bing was more consistent (it's quality seems to oscilate as it fine-tunes the algorithm/corpus) I may have switched already. I was contemplating it after looking at a series of searches it won* at, but then the results went to crap for some reason. Since then, it's been iffy.
* Search engines win if the site I happen to want appears earlier in their list than their competitors. Especially if I didn't know about the site ahead of time.
My laptop runs anywhere. Including places there is no internet connection.
And that's a good thing? Later versions of iTunes start forcing Safari. RealPlayer was great, until a specific version number. Office 2003 is better than 2007. I upgrade when I want to. I don't want bloat, crazy new interfaces, removed features that I use, to use something before SP2, and certianly not without my okay. When someone else controls your device, they can do whatever they want, including delete your copy of 1984.
Neither.
All marketing hype. What do they do that is less evil than Microsoft? Seriously... what is less evil about Google?
Was.
Force standards compliance -or- force freedom of choice. Choose one.
I know you don't have to register a copyright (unless you want statutary damages). But companies usually do.
It already is, if you want to register for a copyright. And if you don't, fine.
Well, I'm not part of the "all code/information wants to be free" religion. I just cry at some of the wonderfl abandonware I cannot access.
So, because other people don't care about their privacy, I shouldn't? I don't post stupid-ass stuff on MySpace/Facebook.
blockquote But if it became known that, for instance, Google was releasing your private email to hiring companies or PIs, they'd be outed, everyone would stop using Gmail, and Google stuff would go down the toilet
It would be known too late for most people, even if it were revealed today. And it would be mail, search history, the google-analytics tracking cookies, etc.
And that's assuming it became public. I think the US Government could probably keep it quiet.
Javascript was but one way to achieve this.
My point was that Google is forcing me to use Javascript, and not just on their site. They're pushing a technology. You're saying that technology is good... well the .doc format was far better than what it superceded. So Microsoft is(was) also good for pushing Office.
Except it exists in the cloud... if you cannot open it you never know you got it. Then you get in trouble for being unresponsive.
You'd think. But it's not. Because there are only so many cubical wall makers, and they know the value to consumers is actually higher than that of offices. Because of the tax savings.
You can lease cube farms. This is entirely deductable. Building walls is a capital investment. It has to be depreciated over X years.
2/3 vote of Jobs, Gates and Linus. Any patch that 2/3 of them want gets accepted. Give them a budget to hire whatever aides they want and let them delegate their vote among their aides as they please.
Althought, I don't know
Competition is why Windows has a 90% marketshare. Competition is just not technical proficeny. And a polyculture is why there is so little support for Linux, when it has the same marketshare as OSX.
The US pays all the bills of having a committee of three and their aides. Patches come from companies/individuals with a vested interest in the additions (or like open-source, altruism/fame/resume experience).
It'll be Open-Source, so I feel that other countries won't inheritly distrust it. Besides ICANN is already under US government control.
Life is not a game. You want to show people the source... neat. You want to not... also neat. Yes, the GPL needs copyright law to force people to reopen the source- but is that a good thing?
Maybe instead of asking for mandatory source opening on all products, ask for it only on products that have been abandoned? The LoC could keep all source in escrow, and once that company stopped building new products based on the source, it could be opened up.
Because if they only have two, then they can clearly have "his and hers" boats. Now that there are three, they have to compromise on the name and usage of the third. Plus, have you seen how hard it is to split a boat in the case of a divorce?
True. But the rest of your comment focuses on improved Linux hardware support (my hardware is already supported) and hurting Microsoft. It doesn't help me to hurt Microsoft. At all. I don't hate them for no real reason.
Where did OpenOffice come from? ChromeOS is all about the cloud, and GoogleDocs. And MS Office offers a lot above GoogleDocs.
Well, suppoe that company is contracted by the federal government to make a no-fly list? Or what if they start sending unsubtle ads based on your porn preferences via the mail (oh, they got your snail mail address because they bought it from your ISP)? Or what if they use it to decide whether you get a job (again, associated you with a person via your ISP... or maybe webmail)? Or when a PI uses it in a divorce proceeding?
I have a problem with companies advertising to me, but I have a much bigger problem with any of the above, and I'm sure I could think of more if I had to.
I don't want a map I can click on and drag. I just want to see a map that shows the line between my starting and ending location. MapQuest used to do this without Javascript, until GoogleMaps made them forced to revamp their site to be GoogleMaps Lite.
Everyone does use JavaScript... now. But everyone does use the .doc format now as well. Javascript owes as much to Google's pushing as the .doc format owes to Microsoft's.
This already happened to me. A GoogleDocs file. Of course, GoogleDocs never worked for me, even when I allow it Javascript access, so I couldn't open it. I got in a lot of trouble.
I expect it to happen in even bigger companies in the future.
They violated a copyright of mine.
But I didn't like Google before they violated my copyright either, so it wasn't personal. I dislike them for gathering tons of information on me, for creating GoogleDocs which I have to use even though it is beyond broken, and other reasons I've outlined.
My point was every decade there's this growth in SaaS and cloud computing. It's more like every five years I suppose. And it never catches on. Not every decade there is a fad.
Citation Needed. It's only if they dislike SaaS enough, and they understand it well enough to make that decision. And there is a reasonable competitor that offers non-SaaS.
There are a lot of tax-benefits with leasing hard assets that don't apply to leasing software. That's one reason companies use cubical farms... it's only cheaper because, via strange tax convolutions, they can lease the cube farms and not buy the materials and labor to subdivide into offices.
No. That's why I said nationalize it. Free to every taxpayer. With source that anyone can look at, but with a well-regulated and monitored patch approval process.
And if it's Windows, whatever. We'll deal.
I like my family. I like being able to help them. It fustrates me when I cannot.
Our eyes happen to be sensitive to. Our retinas are sensitive to UV, but the cornea filters out some UV light: as much as we normally see absent looking at the Sun, etc.
I'm not worried about Google advertising to me. I worried about when they decide to sell their profile of me.
They don't sell an OS (yet), so of course they are OS neutral. But they do try to foist JavaScript on you. And they're pushing Chrome (the Browser) pretty aggressively. Going to get more aggressive later.
And gather information about you that they own.
Actually, when MS was as young as Google is, they were as revered by techies much like Google is today.
As for Google screwing people over, Google stole my intellectual property. It took a lawsuit to get a settlement from them.
Every decade there is this movement and growth. And every decade it fails.
Vendors don't really know what customers want... they only have an idea. And they'll do SaaS if it doesn't piss their customers off too much (as it generates recurring income) rather than only if the customer wants it.
Eek! I hate the idea of multiple OSes. I don't care which one wins, but can the UN just vote one the winner, nationalize the company that made it and get on with life? There's no real innovation, that was all done years ago. Having many OSes just make application development harder, helping family over the phone lines harder, and installing software harder. I just want write-once run-anywhere damnit.
Lynx and notepad?
Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.
That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.
Just as much lock-in, but spread over a larger population.
Why? It's airgapped, so no need for security updates.
Anyway, you have to trust the vendors who wrote the patch if you are already running the software they wrote. The government can require the source and compile it themselves if they need to examine it for backdoors (they just promise never to release the source).
Whatever else you want to say about the military, they tend to do things right regardless of cost. They'll spend... lets just say a few orders of magnitude more for hardware then I could pick it up in a store. But it'll be resilent and more secure, so it's probably worth it.
A prototype Bumbleebee Transformer robot was built, and is available to the public. Unfortunately, it's still in pre-alpha, as the autonomy and transformation circuits seem inoperable and unaccessable.
As long as it didn't show what you are drawing on the screen, yup, it's prior art.
I have a schizoid view of software patents. Patents that repurpose well known concepts ("Look, its an X... ON THE WEB" or "It's mouse gestures on a touchpad") are obviously bad. But on the other hand, having protection for novel ideas makes sense. 18 years may be too long, but inventing the GUI was worthy of patent protection (even if it never got it).
First, the patent was filed in 1999, so 2003 doesn't really matter.
Second, the patent doesn't cover touchscreens, it covers using gestures on touchscreens. That is, the panning of the iPhone, or using the finger swiping gesture to change pages.
I read the word "effectively". I understand the word "effectively". I thought that by addressing the effective competitors (via both a list and proclaiming that I had owned several of them), that I would preempt such knee-jerk reactions as yours.
Many people owned MP3 players before the iPod. I certainly did.
George H.W. Bush's campaign staff once sent brochures to the Postal Workers' union. They sent it FedEx. Guess how well that turned out for them.