I've had past good supportive comments as a Linux user from tech people in the BBC and other similar things (like Parliament TV) but they have no influence in the end. Basically they passed me details of who to send and escalated e-mail to on the Linux support issue.
My ambition was to hope the BBC provide access to me for the things they actually own and can be more liberal with. The argument I placed in the feedback on this simplified said "things like Star Trek you can get on DVD any service the BBC offers to watch that competes but anything they created for their use they own and there is no direct competition to so share it unprotected"
I can't put my finger on it but something about advertising being able to be a monopoly sounds absurd. I think it is because to have total control it seems like you would have to own everything that can be used for advertising. Then there is abuse of it. I can see there being simple grounds for seeing abuse, if for example they refused to take adverts for Microsoft Search. But because it would be so easy to police (spot) any such abuse there again doesn't seem to be a problem.
Finally because your customers will take the advert revenue elsewhere if you stop being attractive it encourages you to be innovative to keep their money coming. That stays true because of the inability to tie people into your service other than by being a top choice for use. Even though you could look at the Google APIs as an attempt to do so?
Best solution is to teach the difference between a primary source and secondary sources and put a simple rule on papers being unable to pass if they rely on only secondary sources. There is a similar consideration to be applied from reliability.
You miss the point dim wit. Some places in the world there are people to who the legal landscape around the GPL matters. So it is important to highlight for those who care what facts there are in the world rather than the FUD and things like case law qualify as facts.
I suppose an answer to this for a Linux system in regular desktop use is to slap in 2, 4 or more Gb of regular memory so that you don't have to use swap and can perhaps mount 1G or so as the regularly written drives.
But Linux does cut crime because those using it and all the other Free Software tools aren't illegally copying Office etc to use. On the other hand it increases it in some areas like watching DVDs without clear legal OK-ness.
I can't help thinking with all these sorts of discovery that there are so many people and so much variety that most findings are inevitable. A bit like the principle of Asmiov's Foundation Universe man who had never made a bad decision being asked to decide on the fate of humans.
I suspect the power-saving mode to be the result of an out of range for your monitor setting. The result being after the brief message from the monitor it enters standby because there is no signal.
So to a relative new comer power saving is apparent. I imagine that happens on Windows too though if you try to go to a setting that your monitor can't cope with. The only difference being I would find it marginally harder (distro dependent) to get past the 15 seconds or so test settings patch without it reverting.
I have to tinker in typing in Windows sometimes with for example adding an environment variable. So your absolute "NEVER EVER" is just too rigid. I might accept it if you said the proverbial grandma never has too, by that meaning that a person who buys a contained unit and uses it for purely mainstream purposes should never have to.
I think lefties are more prone to being sheep like huddling in a flock and moved
around by the shepherd. But more likely to have principles.
The right are less likely to operate purely on principle rather than cost or pragmatism, so they'll use things even if it makes them hypocritical.
A simple split of users/used, takers/givers meanwhile the people who actually do the development see issues and solutions not problems and party politics (ideology and dogma).
So when he becomes president eventually who thinks the US government will have an open standards and general software policy that makes it easier for Federal adoption of Free Software?
I've been arguing this since the UK government published it's report that justified the decision they then took to go to war in Iraq. A later inquiry said it couldn't find who had made what changes and what was the cause of each change.
I just thought in safety critical software best practice requires that level of knowledge and it exists in the tools used and not many more things can be considered safety critical than a war involving lots and lots of weaponry in use.
In conclusion all output of government that is used to justify policy and legislation should be covered that way.
I'm not so sure the reasoning is flawed except that there might be exceptions to every set of considerations that need a different solution.
Plus now you have added details it is clear you don't compete in the same business (soil cleaning) but in disposal. I might have also misunderstood soil to mean the stuff plants grow in but you might mean (apology that this might sound like trivialising something I obviousbly know nothing about directly, I just want to simplify) washing the stuff (soil?) disposed of in life?
That leads me to ask wouldn't trade secrets work? The point of a patent was always to get ideas put into the public domain for everyone to see. What you wrote gives me the impression of using the patent as protection and therefore the intention not to share. It's that contradiction that always gets me with a patent, share it but no one should use it (without license) or keep it secret and be the only player in the market.
Your situation actually reminds me of another area which is development of drugs and treatments. We obviously want them but to actually develop some of them and put them through all required trials is so expensive even large companies couldn't be expected to shoulder it without some protection. I'm still uncomfortable with it and try to think what a better solution would be.
In fact the more I've just read (UK) copyright law and also thought about what the Google search offers I just think M$ are upset they didn't think of doing it first.
Perhaps a key factor in the minds of Google is the practical necessity in showing the level of consequential loss (at least under some richer legal systems). And as the small scale proofs of concept relating to books shows sales increasing it might be tough to achieve.
And also that the infringing act has to involve all or a substantial part of the work. Which from the brief play with google book search I've had you really don't see. I suppose the copying of it into the system to be able to search is the crunch point.
Thought occurs to me of requiring the people who register patents to be required to be randomly selected as in affect a juror on a number of patents, the number determined as a geared ration against the number of patents they register. So a single application might require you to review two, ten a hundred. (Obviously the gearing changes in a sliding scale).
Details like what evidence of research needs to be submitted etc would need defining but I like it. It throws the cost back onto the biggest users of the system and of course opens up a whole new avenue of anti-competitive behaviour as people work in cahoots to not find evidence to contest their own interests.
Separate send and receive channels which happen to both be able to be implemented in light which yes does interact and interfere but doesn't harm the content. Plus I it is probably possible for them all to in affect broadcast by zapping to the mirror? So everything can read everything from everywhere.
I suppose it can be quicker through 1/ travelling at the speed of light rather than electrons 2/ using a dedicated protocol that has less over heads than a generic IP one.
There is a difference. The operating system most of us would consider is what gives us access to the whole of our computers resources. If you can't use it without the additional server the operating system becomes the software on your machine plus the software on the server. The other difference is you didn't have to do this before (you may have I don't know). But simply the OS is no longer self contained and complete of itself.
The simpler administration under certain (probably common) instances I take your word for and believe.
There's a difference in philosophy in this. One angle is that you should have patents so you can protect your position by legal monopoly. Result if you have the best technology no one can compete. In this area it works OK because the margin the new technology gives is probably enough that it leaves you the better but not overwhelmingly better choice on price and performance.
But if the competitors were given the freedom to use the technology competition would be purely on your corporate efficiency and therefore better for the consumer and the economic principle of "best use of scarce resource" is more fully met.
What is a new thought to me is that the holding of a patent in a narrow band case could actually be a spur rather than road block to innovation. If things are that close any other party coming up with new ideas that improve things will tip the balance.
The philosophy comes in the choice of best for consumers versus the best for the provider. I still think patents in any scenario are better for the provider and that is the point of them.
Yes of course it is just like if I go out and leave my house unlocked and the door open I'm burgling myself even if it happens to be some other git who comes along and takes my entire CD collection and 77" TV
I kind of got the feeling I would expect the Win32 threads to be C++ and the Pthreads to be C. So if he's had a shift to C++ and bought into it of course the old limitations of a C library are going to be inferior as an API. But is it possible to write a C++ cover for the Pthreads that would resolve all his claims and maintain the Pthreads advantages from the original article.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had past good supportive comments as a Linux user from tech people in the BBC and other similar things (like Parliament TV) but they have no influence in the end. Basically they passed me details of who to send and escalated e-mail to on the Linux support issue.
My ambition was to hope the BBC provide access to me for the things they actually own and can be more liberal with. The argument I placed in the feedback on this simplified said "things like Star Trek you can get on DVD any service the BBC offers to watch that competes but anything they created for their use they own and there is no direct competition to so share it unprotected"
Then soon after that is allowed they will be downloading a bot to their machines that automatically votes for them. Lazy beeps!
The simple answer (and correct) is no.
The digital camera will be used by people who need a camera.
I can't put my finger on it but something about advertising being able to be a monopoly sounds absurd. I think it is because to have total control it seems like you would have to own everything that can be used for advertising. Then there is abuse of it. I can see there being simple grounds for seeing abuse, if for example they refused to take adverts for Microsoft Search. But because it would be so easy to police (spot) any such abuse there again doesn't seem to be a problem.
Finally because your customers will take the advert revenue elsewhere if you stop being attractive it encourages you to be innovative to keep their money coming. That stays true because of the inability to tie people into your service other than by being a top choice for use. Even though you could look at the Google APIs as an attempt to do so?
Best solution is to teach the difference between a primary source and secondary sources and put a simple rule on papers being unable to pass if they rely on only secondary sources. There is a similar consideration to be applied from reliability.
You miss the point dim wit. Some places in the world there are people to who the legal landscape around the GPL matters. So it is important to highlight for those who care what facts there are in the world rather than the FUD and things like case law qualify as facts.
It belonged to the estate.
I suppose an answer to this for a Linux system in regular desktop use is to slap in 2, 4 or more Gb of regular memory so that you don't have to use swap and can perhaps mount 1G or so as the regularly written drives.
But Linux does cut crime because those using it and all the other Free Software tools aren't illegally copying Office etc to use. On the other hand it increases it in some areas like watching DVDs without clear legal OK-ness.
I can't help thinking with all these sorts of discovery that there are so many people and so much variety that most findings are inevitable. A bit like the principle of Asmiov's Foundation Universe man who had never made a bad decision being asked to decide on the fate of humans.
My first thought was for a Borg style Star Trek virus to infiltrate and cripple the system.
I suspect the power-saving mode to be the result of an out of range for your monitor setting. The result being after the brief message from the monitor it enters standby because there is no signal.
So to a relative new comer power saving is apparent. I imagine that happens on Windows too though if you try to go to a setting that your monitor can't cope with. The only difference being I would find it marginally harder (distro dependent) to get past the 15 seconds or so test settings patch without it reverting.
What's the command line, typing.
I have to tinker in typing in Windows sometimes with for example adding an environment variable. So your absolute "NEVER EVER" is just too rigid. I might accept it if you said the proverbial grandma never has too, by that meaning that a person who buys a contained unit and uses it for purely mainstream purposes should never have to.
I think lefties are more prone to being sheep like huddling in a flock and moved around by the shepherd. But more likely to have principles.
The right are less likely to operate purely on principle rather than cost or pragmatism, so they'll use things even if it makes them hypocritical.
A simple split of users/used, takers/givers meanwhile the people who actually do the development see issues and solutions not problems and party politics (ideology and dogma).
So when he becomes president eventually who thinks the US government will have an open standards and general software policy that makes it easier for Federal adoption of Free Software?
I've been arguing this since the UK government published it's report that justified the decision they then took to go to war in Iraq. A later inquiry said it couldn't find who had made what changes and what was the cause of each change.
I just thought in safety critical software best practice requires that level of knowledge and it exists in the tools used and not many more things can be considered safety critical than a war involving lots and lots of weaponry in use.
In conclusion all output of government that is used to justify policy and legislation should be covered that way.
I'm not so sure the reasoning is flawed except that there might be exceptions to every set of considerations that need a different solution.
Plus now you have added details it is clear you don't compete in the same business (soil cleaning) but in disposal. I might have also misunderstood soil to mean the stuff plants grow in but you might mean (apology that this might sound like trivialising something I obviousbly know nothing about directly, I just want to simplify) washing the stuff (soil?) disposed of in life?
That leads me to ask wouldn't trade secrets work? The point of a patent was always to get ideas put into the public domain for everyone to see. What you wrote gives me the impression of using the patent as protection and therefore the intention not to share. It's that contradiction that always gets me with a patent, share it but no one should use it (without license) or keep it secret and be the only player in the market.
Your situation actually reminds me of another area which is development of drugs and treatments. We obviously want them but to actually develop some of them and put them through all required trials is so expensive even large companies couldn't be expected to shoulder it without some protection. I'm still uncomfortable with it and try to think what a better solution would be.
In fact the more I've just read (UK) copyright law and also thought about what the Google search offers I just think M$ are upset they didn't think of doing it first.
Perhaps a key factor in the minds of Google is the practical necessity in showing the level of consequential loss (at least under some richer legal systems). And as the small scale proofs of concept relating to books shows sales increasing it might be tough to achieve.
And also that the infringing act has to involve all or a substantial part of the work. Which from the brief play with google book search I've had you really don't see. I suppose the copying of it into the system to be able to search is the crunch point.
Thought occurs to me of requiring the people who register patents to be required to be randomly selected as in affect a juror on a number of patents, the number determined as a geared ration against the number of patents they register. So a single application might require you to review two, ten a hundred. (Obviously the gearing changes in a sliding scale).
Details like what evidence of research needs to be submitted etc would need defining but I like it. It throws the cost back onto the biggest users of the system and of course opens up a whole new avenue of anti-competitive behaviour as people work in cahoots to not find evidence to contest their own interests.
Separate send and receive channels which happen to both be able to be implemented in light which yes does interact and interfere but doesn't harm the content. Plus I it is probably possible for them all to in affect broadcast by zapping to the mirror? So everything can read everything from everywhere.
I suppose it can be quicker through 1/ travelling at the speed of light rather than electrons 2/ using a dedicated protocol that has less over heads than a generic IP one.
There is a difference. The operating system most of us would consider is what gives us access to the whole of our computers resources. If you can't use it without the additional server the operating system becomes the software on your machine plus the software on the server. The other difference is you didn't have to do this before (you may have I don't know). But simply the OS is no longer self contained and complete of itself. The simpler administration under certain (probably common) instances I take your word for and believe.
There's a difference in philosophy in this. One angle is that you should have patents so you can protect your position by legal monopoly. Result if you have the best technology no one can compete. In this area it works OK because the margin the new technology gives is probably enough that it leaves you the better but not overwhelmingly better choice on price and performance.
But if the competitors were given the freedom to use the technology competition would be purely on your corporate efficiency and therefore better for the consumer and the economic principle of "best use of scarce resource" is more fully met.
What is a new thought to me is that the holding of a patent in a narrow band case could actually be a spur rather than road block to innovation. If things are that close any other party coming up with new ideas that improve things will tip the balance.
The philosophy comes in the choice of best for consumers versus the best for the provider. I still think patents in any scenario are better for the provider and that is the point of them.
Yes of course it is just like if I go out and leave my house unlocked and the door open I'm burgling myself even if it happens to be some other git who comes along and takes my entire CD collection and 77" TV
I kind of got the feeling I would expect the Win32 threads to be C++ and the Pthreads to be C. So if he's had a shift to C++ and bought into it of course the old limitations of a C library are going to be inferior as an API. But is it possible to write a C++ cover for the Pthreads that would resolve all his claims and maintain the Pthreads advantages from the original article.