While it would be nice if we could break the lightspeed barrier, as far as we know we can't. So we use the best tools we can.
The smoke signal analogy doesn't really hold, because we know that radio waves can span the distances involved.
And the detection of a signal in and of itself would be a momentous event, even if we had no hope of a dialog.
The argument about spacefaring nations needing a better comm system is bogus. They'll use what they can. And if its radio its radio. It's like claiming that the seafaring nations of several hundred years ago couldn't have existed because they had no way to communicate with home while at sea.
It is quite possible that our future is one where bioware and wetware is replaced by hardware and software.
A strong proponent of this viewpoint is Hans Moravec. See his books Mind Children and Robot.
But as was pointed out in another post, the Culture novels of Ian M. Banks present an interesting alternative, with machines and humans living together quite nicely.
Right now we use mechanical systems such as pace makers, eye glasses, artificial joints and the like because we don't know how to make biological ones.
Once we learn to regenerate or clone these biosystems we'll stop using mechanical ones. And as we master genetic engineering we'll start adding capabilities. And the trend toward mechanization will reverse itself.
That leaves intelligence as the determining factor. And the direction we take will depend on how much we can augment our biological systems. If biosystems, perhaps even with non biological components, can hold their own with machine intelligneces, then I suspect biosystems will be around for a long time to come.
Certainly no intelligent species would want to replace itself with machines,...
Hans Moravec of CMU makes an interesting argument as to why an intelligent species would want to do just that, replace bioware and wetware with hardware and software.
See his books Mind Children and Robot.
The main thrust of his argument seems to be that current bodies are way too fragile and wear out much to fast. A robot body would be much more robust and upgradable as well. And the ability to do mind backups could be quite useful.
Moravec argues that as a robot he would be effectively immortal.
The main trade off being no sex.
Would you trade sex for immortallity? Well, maybe not today, but in fifty years when your body starts to wear out maybe you'll change your mind (literally).
Of course, in fifty years we may be able to do bioware upgrades.
The point is that an intelligent species, or a significant portion there of, may decide that becoming machines is the way to go.
Actually there was a group that made a partial working Analytical Engine. I don't have the reference handy but I do recall that it made the cover of Scientific American.
And yes, no company would use that technology to make a computer. But that wasn't my point.
My point was that advances in technology make once impractical devices practical. Leonardo DaVinci had designs for a helicopter. But with the technology of his day there was no way to make it work. Today we have better technology. And helicopters.
And today we have computers.
I don't know if Apple is even working on pen input or if they can pull it off. But they almost had it with the last Newton (although I have no direct experience with that device). But I see no reason to claim that just because a technology failed in the past it will fail forever (expect of course in those cases where some physical law is violated, thus no perpetual motion machines).
I hope that they do pull it off, as I would weclome another input option.
And I think my point still stands. Advances in technology can make once impractical devices practical.
I'll agree that writing is slower than typing, but only for those who can type. And most people can't type. But just because Go and the others failed is no reason to assume that pen based input will always fail.
And as was pointed out, this is in addition to not in place of a keyboard. I can think of a number of applications where writing is the prefered input method. And while I can type faster than I can write when I am typing my thoughts, I can take notes much faster with a pen and paper in meetings or classes.
Finally, I am a bit skeptical about your lack of pen use. I use pens all the time, for jotting notes, signing documents, giving out my phone number, email address, street address, and plenty of other things that don't make sense with a computer.
Do you think that a head in a jar would think in the same was [sic] as when it was attached to the rest of the body?
The short answer is yes. If the brain is still intact and provided with the proper nutrients, oxygen, etc. it should function no differently then before.
The lack of a body will mean the lack of any stimuli from the body. Thus the brain's 'intuitive senses' (i.e. 'gut feel') will no longer have any effect on the output of such a brain.
This seems similar to someone losing their hearing or sight. They still think the same way they just don't have as much input to use to think with.
Thus the correct way to think about a head in a jar is as a severely handicapped individual. And no doubt the personality of that brain would change over time. (But that's true of all brains.)
Since you said head in a jar I assume you mean that the eyes, ears, nose, mouth are still intact and functioning. If not, then we have the absense of these inputs, but the brain would still function the same way. But it would have no input to operate on. Sensory deprivation studies have shown that brains will create their own inputs, aka hallucinations. The person associated with that brain, experiencing massive sensory loss would probably go insane.
Disclaimer: I'm in CA and live in NJ. Thus all my refereces for what I write below are ~2500 miles away. And as I get older my memory is getting increasingly fuzzy.
I've not seen anything that says that the visual system activates before the visual signal is received.
That said I've read about a brain processing effect that might be what the AC above is refering to. I believe a discussion of this phenomena is available in Daniel Dennet's Consciousness Explained.
What I have seen is that there is ~.5 second (and this may be off by an order of magnitude) delay between the brain receiving a signal and acting upon it and our becoming consciously aware of it. No big deal so far. The big deal is that the brain fools with the timing to make us think that we were conscious of it when it was first detected. Effectively it back dates the time stamp of our awareness.
Until there were experiments that clearly showed what was going on this generated claims of scientifically proven prescience.
I wish I had the references to give a more complete explanation.
So they got one right. Or at least they had the notion of a cube right.
BFD. How many have they gotten wrong?
Cliche time: Even a broken clock clock (analog) is right twice a day.
I used to read MOSR. I don't waste my time anymore. The signal to noise ratio is just too low. And any 'real' inside info is quickly available on other Mac sites.
The key to any rumors type site is credibility. For me, MOSR is just noise.
I do not know how much it costs to get or defend a patent.
But with patents if two guys in a garage have an idea they can get venture capital and start a company.
Without patents two guys in a garage are just two guys in a garage. Anyone with money justs takes their idea and implements it.
Doing away with patents does not level the playing field by any stretch of the imagination.
That is not entirely true. In those cases where the cost of building and distributing a product are small, then the lack of patents allows anyone in the game. Combine that with a willingness to forgo monetary gain and it doesn't matter how much money the big boys have.
Any such products spring to mind? (Think flightless Antartic water fowl.)
Perhaps when it is as easy to copy atoms as it is bits, (think StarTrek replicators or Diamond Age type MCs) we couldconsider eliminating patents.
And I believe that we need to reconsider software and genetic patents now. But the simple elimination of all patents might lead to a level playing field only in those cases with low startup costs and a willingness to forgo monetary gain.
The original inventor would still have the right to persue their invention, persue other ideas to which his/her invention gives rise, etc. And, someone else coming up with the same invention at roughly the same time (a very common occurance historically) would not have the rights to their invention taken from them simply because they lost a footrace to the patent office. Without patents, everyone could play and compete accordingly, and the market, rather than a governmental authority, could decide who "wins" and who doesn't. One of the nice things about the free market is that there are often multiple winners in a given area, a stark contrast to the sole "winner" of a patent.
It sounds good for those that have the same idea at the same time. But my crystal ball shows a different scenario...
If there is no patent protection than anyone can make use of the invention. So who is going to win, the individual inventor (a college professor perhaps) or a well heeled corporation?
It's worse than this, because the inventor has nothing of value. He can't sell his patents, because he doesn't have any. He can't stop anyone else from using his idea, so no one will invest in him or his idea.
So as a result of doing away with patents we get a few very large companies. And the end of meaningful competition.
At least Microsoft has to pay for its innovations today. Under your scenario it just takes what ever it wants and beats everyone to market.
So contrary to your claim, everyone doesn't have the same chance to take advantage of what would have been a patentable idea. Nope, only those with money can.
The irony of the case is that the ACLU and the websites will be trying to prove that their web sites ARE harmful to minors, while the DOJ and the anti-porn people are going to be trying to prove that these websites are NOT harmful to minors.
Why? Because if the websites are not harmful to minors, then the websites have no "standing" to challenge the law. The District Court would rule that they are in no danger of being charged under COPA so the case is dismissed, the preliminary injuction is lifted, and the government can go back to enforcing COPA without having to worry about the Supreme Court throwing out the law.
IANAL either, but wouldn't they just have to argue that under this law they would be considered harmful to minors and not that they actually are harmful?
Alas, I don't have a reference, but not to long ago the Supreme Court (or maybe just one of the justices) was complaining about the same thing and cautioned congress to stop passing unconstitutional laws.
Anything found in the pits of Mars would be completely isolated from Earth's biosphere.
As others have pointed out the Earth and Mars have exchanged meteorites. Earth has also sent probes to Mars. It is thus possible that any life we find on Mars originated on Earth.
A microbe from Earth was fom on a Surveyor lander by the Apollo astronuats (sorry I don't have a reference). Thus we know microbes can survive in space and make the trip to Mars. It is not clear that they could survive the decent through the Marian atmosphere. And such spacecraft are routinely sterilized these days.
But the possiblility does exist that we have contaminated Mars.
I submitted this story yesterday, but with an added bit.
I read about the court decision in yesterday's USA Today. There was another story about PETA in the paper. It seems they introduced their "UnHappy Meals" McDonalds parody, complete with a stuffed Ronald McDonald doll holding a bloody butcher knife.
The UnHappy Meal comes in the same kind of box as a Happy Meal and is aimed at children. Intentionally trying to confuse and frighten children using McDonalds trade dress.
Why is it that 'real world' parody is ok but web parody is not? Why does PETA think that they have the right to use anothers name and look and feel but is exempt from the same treatment?
And more importantly, how do we get the judicial system to have a clue?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Which part of "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." don't you understand?
Now there does seem to be a conflict between "... make no law..." and "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." or even with the bit about free speech.
But one could also argue that the students can pray all they want and that they can can do it in public, but that they can't do it under state, i.e. government, sanction.
I tend to side with the surpremes on this one. Protecting the rights of those of minority faiths or even non-believers seems more important to me especially when each and every student can still pray as much as they want.
Once upon a time (back when I was in college) I had a typewriter, a TI-59 programmable calculator, a video game console (very primative, it played 'pong' type games), and a stereo system. If I wanted to use a computer I had to go to a computer center to use a decwriter or a terminal to access the IBM 3033. Fax machines were also available on campus.
Today I have a Power Mac G3. All those things (and more) in one box.
Far from un-nerving I find it a very welcome improvement.
Now from a hobbiest point of view, part of the fun of 'home theater' is the choosing of and buying components. It's a similar to the difference between buying a computer system or buying the components and assembling it yourself.
For most people (aka consumers) the one box option is what they want. No decisions to make, just plug it in and go. The hobbiests and hackers will always want the ability to tweak the system. Hopefully, we'll continue have that option.
The reason Microsoft has their monopoly, is because they control both the applications and the OS. They control the entire desktop.
This allows them to lock the user in. By splitting the company into an apps co and an OS co, the reasoning (hope?) is that the applications company will now be free to write apps for other OS's. And that the OS company will be more willing to work with other application vendors.
So the point is to foster innovation (!) and competion with companies other than Microsoft. If Microsoft was split in three companies that do the same things all you have is Microsoft competing against 'itself'. Other companies would still face the same barriers to entry they have today, only more so, since they have three 'Microsofts to contend with.
You are correct in observing that both companies will have a dominant position in their market. But neither would control the entire desktop. And that's the point.
The point isn't that Microsoft integrated IE into the OS. Nor is it that Microsoft is a monopoly.
Both of these are ok.
The problem is what Microsoft did with its monopoly power, of which integrating IE is just one example.
Microsoft didn't integrate IE because they thought it would benefit users. They did it to lock Netscape and any other browser out of the market, Why, because Microsoft saw the browser as a new platform that could make the OS superfluous.
As I said this is just one example of Microsofts behavior, aka extend and embrace. And that (along with an incompetent legal team) is why the DOJ is looking to break them up.
Now, let me get this straight. You're in the UK. The store is in the US.
Assumptions: 1. You've never been to this store in person. 2. You're not famous. 3. They have no idea what you look like.
So what does providing a photo prove? If I was going to use a credit card fraudulently, I'd steal the card. Take a picture of Joe Random Stranger, and send them off to the merchant.
Until such time that there is an international databse of people's photos, this should work just fine.
So either these guys are clueless or it's a scam. I'd shop elsewhere.
The music industry _built_ popular music. This genre of music, by definition, does not exist without records.
A curious definition. A better one is non-Classical music. The music industry turned popular music into a multi-billion dollar business. But the only 'genre' of music that doesn't exist without 'records' (and tapes, and CDs, etc.) is recorded music.
... but Metallica would not exist without the record industry
I suppose in one sense this is true. If Lars and the boys had not grown up in a culture where recorded music existed and thus had plenty of role models for a career as a rock and roll musician, then there would probably be no Metallica. But there have been plenty of bands that have come and gone without the help of record companies.
But you're not refering to bands are you? What you really mean is that without record companies Metallica the money making machine would not exist.
Name ONE musician who has achieved national stardom, without money from a record company.
Is national stardom the criteia by which we should judge musical execellence? I shudder to think it! I almost never listen to the radio because the 'music' (what little they play between the DJ's, excuse me, on air personality's, insipid blathering) is crap.
But this is a red herring. How many TV stars were there when that medium was new? Radio stars just after radio is invented? How long was it before the first recording star? Give it time.
Last I checked, nobody had any beef with independent artists putting out their own music.
Simply because the record companies knew it wasn't cost effective. But technology is rapidly changing that. And that's what scares the record companies. That every artist could be an independant and 'make it' without them.
Slashdot Mirror
While it would be nice if we could break the lightspeed barrier, as far as we know we can't. So we use the best tools we can.
The smoke signal analogy doesn't really hold, because we know that radio waves can span the distances involved.
And the detection of a signal in and of itself would be a momentous event, even if we had no hope of a dialog.
The argument about spacefaring nations needing a better comm system is bogus. They'll use what they can. And if its radio its radio. It's like claiming that the seafaring nations of several hundred years ago couldn't have existed because they had no way to communicate with home while at sea.
SteveM
It is quite possible that our future is one where bioware and wetware is replaced by hardware and software.
A strong proponent of this viewpoint is Hans Moravec. See his books Mind Children and Robot.
But as was pointed out in another post, the Culture novels of Ian M. Banks present an interesting alternative, with machines and humans living together quite nicely.
Right now we use mechanical systems such as pace makers, eye glasses, artificial joints and the like because we don't know how to make biological ones.
Once we learn to regenerate or clone these biosystems we'll stop using mechanical ones. And as we master genetic engineering we'll start adding capabilities. And the trend toward mechanization will reverse itself.
That leaves intelligence as the determining factor. And the direction we take will depend on how much we can augment our biological systems. If biosystems, perhaps even with non biological components, can hold their own with machine intelligneces, then I suspect biosystems will be around for a long time to come.
SteveM
Certainly no intelligent species would want to replace itself with machines,...
Hans Moravec of CMU makes an interesting argument as to why an intelligent species would want to do just that, replace bioware and wetware with hardware and software.
See his books Mind Children and Robot.
The main thrust of his argument seems to be that current bodies are way too fragile and wear out much to fast. A robot body would be much more robust and upgradable as well. And the ability to do mind backups could be quite useful.
Moravec argues that as a robot he would be effectively immortal.
The main trade off being no sex.
Would you trade sex for immortallity? Well, maybe not today, but in fifty years when your body starts to wear out maybe you'll change your mind (literally).
Of course, in fifty years we may be able to do bioware upgrades.
The point is that an intelligent species, or a significant portion there of, may decide that becoming machines is the way to go.
Steve M
This part of the book is very "mathematical" and its conclusions must be regarded as true.
Actually, many reseachers, in both physics and AI, do not regard it is true. And the question of "intelligent computers" is still an open one.
Just because something is mathematical doesn't make it true. It may follow from the assumptions, but it is Penrose's assumptions that are in dispute.
See Dennet's Consciousness Explained for an example of a viewpoint opposed to Penrose's.
Steve M
Actually there was a group that made a partial working Analytical Engine. I don't have the reference handy but I do recall that it made the cover of Scientific American.
And yes, no company would use that technology to make a computer. But that wasn't my point.
My point was that advances in technology make once impractical devices practical. Leonardo DaVinci had designs for a helicopter. But with the technology of his day there was no way to make it work. Today we have better technology. And helicopters.
And today we have computers.
I don't know if Apple is even working on pen input or if they can pull it off. But they almost had it with the last Newton (although I have no direct experience with that device). But I see no reason to claim that just because a technology failed in the past it will fail forever (expect of course in those cases where some physical law is violated, thus no perpetual motion machines).
I hope that they do pull it off, as I would weclome another input option.
Steve M
And I think my point still stands. Advances in technology can make once impractical devices practical.
I'll agree that writing is slower than typing, but only for those who can type. And most people can't type. But just because Go and the others failed is no reason to assume that pen based input will always fail.
And as was pointed out, this is in addition to not in place of a keyboard. I can think of a number of applications where writing is the prefered input method. And while I can type faster than I can write when I am typing my thoughts, I can take notes much faster with a pen and paper in meetings or classes.
Finally, I am a bit skeptical about your lack of pen use. I use pens all the time, for jotting notes, signing documents, giving out my phone number, email address, street address, and plenty of other things that don't make sense with a computer.
Steve M
Yeah, and didn't that Babbage guy try to make a computer. And after years of work and plenty of money wasted there was very little to show for it.
I can't imagine that any company would think it would succeed now.
Steve M
Uh, no. USB is from Intel.
Steve M
Do you think that a head in a jar would think in the same was [sic] as when it was attached to the rest of the body?
The short answer is yes. If the brain is still intact and provided with the proper nutrients, oxygen, etc. it should function no differently then before.
The lack of a body will mean the lack of any stimuli from the body. Thus the brain's 'intuitive senses' (i.e. 'gut feel') will no longer have any effect on the output of such a brain.
This seems similar to someone losing their hearing or sight. They still think the same way they just don't have as much input to use to think with.
Thus the correct way to think about a head in a jar is as a severely handicapped individual. And no doubt the personality of that brain would change over time. (But that's true of all brains.)
Since you said head in a jar I assume you mean that the eyes, ears, nose, mouth are still intact and functioning. If not, then we have the absense of these inputs, but the brain would still function the same way. But it would have no input to operate on. Sensory deprivation studies have shown that brains will create their own inputs, aka hallucinations. The person associated with that brain, experiencing massive sensory loss would probably go insane.
Steve M
Disclaimer: I'm in CA and live in NJ. Thus all my refereces for what I write below are ~2500 miles away. And as I get older my memory is getting increasingly fuzzy.
I've not seen anything that says that the visual system activates before the visual signal is received.
That said I've read about a brain processing effect that might be what the AC above is refering to. I believe a discussion of this phenomena is available in Daniel Dennet's Consciousness Explained.
What I have seen is that there is ~.5 second (and this may be off by an order of magnitude) delay between the brain receiving a signal and acting upon it and our becoming consciously aware of it. No big deal so far. The big deal is that the brain fools with the timing to make us think that we were conscious of it when it was first detected. Effectively it back dates the time stamp of our awareness.
Until there were experiments that clearly showed what was going on this generated claims of scientifically proven prescience.
I wish I had the references to give a more complete explanation.
Steve M
So they got one right. Or at least they had the notion of a cube right.
BFD. How many have they gotten wrong?
Cliche time: Even a broken clock clock (analog) is right twice a day.
I used to read MOSR. I don't waste my time anymore. The signal to noise ratio is just too low. And any 'real' inside info is quickly available on other Mac sites.
The key to any rumors type site is credibility. For me, MOSR is just noise.
Steve M
... I knew you could.
So why was this moderated to interesting?
Steve M
I do not know how much it costs to get or defend a patent.
But with patents if two guys in a garage have an idea they can get venture capital and start a company.
Without patents two guys in a garage are just two guys in a garage. Anyone with money justs takes their idea and implements it.
Doing away with patents does not level the playing field by any stretch of the imagination.
That is not entirely true. In those cases where the cost of building and distributing a product are small, then the lack of patents allows anyone in the game. Combine that with a willingness to forgo monetary gain and it doesn't matter how much money the big boys have.
Any such products spring to mind? (Think flightless Antartic water fowl.)
Perhaps when it is as easy to copy atoms as it is bits, (think StarTrek replicators or Diamond Age type MCs) we couldconsider eliminating patents.
And I believe that we need to reconsider software and genetic patents now. But the simple elimination of all patents might lead to a level playing field only in those cases with low startup costs and a willingness to forgo monetary gain.
SteveM
The original inventor would still have the right to persue their invention, persue other ideas to which his/her invention gives rise, etc. And, someone else coming up with the same invention at roughly the same time (a very common occurance historically) would not have the rights to their invention taken from them simply because they lost a footrace to the patent office. Without patents, everyone could play and compete accordingly, and the market, rather than a governmental authority, could decide who "wins" and who doesn't. One of the nice things about the free market is that there are often multiple winners in a given area, a stark contrast to the sole "winner" of a patent.
It sounds good for those that have the same idea at the same time. But my crystal ball shows a different scenario ...
If there is no patent protection than anyone can make use of the invention. So who is going to win, the individual inventor (a college professor perhaps) or a well heeled corporation?
It's worse than this, because the inventor has nothing of value. He can't sell his patents, because he doesn't have any. He can't stop anyone else from using his idea, so no one will invest in him or his idea.
So as a result of doing away with patents we get a few very large companies. And the end of meaningful competition.
At least Microsoft has to pay for its innovations today. Under your scenario it just takes what ever it wants and beats everyone to market.
So contrary to your claim, everyone doesn't have the same chance to take advantage of what would have been a patentable idea. Nope, only those with money can.
Steve M
The irony of the case is that the ACLU and the websites will be trying to prove that their web sites ARE harmful to minors, while the DOJ and the anti-porn people are going to be trying to prove that these websites are NOT harmful to minors.
Why? Because if the websites are not harmful to minors, then the websites have no "standing" to challenge the law. The District Court would rule that they are in no danger of being charged under COPA so the case is dismissed, the preliminary injuction is lifted, and the government can go back to enforcing COPA without having to worry about the Supreme Court throwing out the law.
IANAL either, but wouldn't they just have to argue that under this law they would be considered harmful to minors and not that they actually are harmful?
SteveM
Alas, I don't have a reference, but not to long ago the Supreme Court (or maybe just one of the justices) was complaining about the same thing and cautioned congress to stop passing unconstitutional laws.
Steve M
Anything found in the pits of Mars would be completely isolated from Earth's biosphere.
As others have pointed out the Earth and Mars have exchanged meteorites. Earth has also sent probes to Mars. It is thus possible that any life we find on Mars originated on Earth.
A microbe from Earth was fom on a Surveyor lander by the Apollo astronuats (sorry I don't have a reference). Thus we know microbes can survive in space and make the trip to Mars. It is not clear that they could survive the decent through the Marian atmosphere. And such spacecraft are routinely sterilized these days.
But the possiblility does exist that we have contaminated Mars.
Steve M
I submitted this story yesterday, but with an added bit.
I read about the court decision in yesterday's USA Today. There was another story about PETA in the paper. It seems they introduced their "UnHappy Meals" McDonalds parody, complete with a stuffed Ronald McDonald doll holding a bloody butcher knife.
The UnHappy Meal comes in the same kind of box as a Happy Meal and is aimed at children. Intentionally trying to confuse and frighten children using McDonalds trade dress.
Why is it that 'real world' parody is ok but web parody is not? Why does PETA think that they have the right to use anothers name and look and feel but is exempt from the same treatment?
And more importantly, how do we get the judicial system to have a clue?
Steve M
The first Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Which part of "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." don't you understand?
Now there does seem to be a conflict between "... make no law ..." and "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." or even with the bit about free speech.
But one could also argue that the students can pray all they want and that they can can do it in public, but that they can't do it under state, i.e. government, sanction.
I tend to side with the surpremes on this one. Protecting the rights of those of minority faiths or even non-believers seems more important to me especially when each and every student can still pray as much as they want.
Steve M
Come on, this had to be sarcasm!
Once upon a time (back when I was in college) I had a typewriter, a TI-59 programmable calculator, a video game console (very primative, it played 'pong' type games), and a stereo system. If I wanted to use a computer I had to go to a computer center to use a decwriter or a terminal to access the IBM 3033. Fax machines were also available on campus.
Today I have a Power Mac G3. All those things (and more) in one box.
Far from un-nerving I find it a very welcome improvement.
Now from a hobbiest point of view, part of the fun of 'home theater' is the choosing of and buying components. It's a similar to the difference between buying a computer system or buying the components and assembling it yourself.
For most people (aka consumers) the one box option is what they want. No decisions to make, just plug it in and go. The hobbiests and hackers will always want the ability to tweak the system. Hopefully, we'll continue have that option.
Steve M
The reason Microsoft has their monopoly, is because they control both the applications and the OS. They control the entire desktop.
This allows them to lock the user in. By splitting the company into an apps co and an OS co, the reasoning (hope?) is that the applications company will now be free to write apps for other OS's. And that the OS company will be more willing to work with other application vendors.
So the point is to foster innovation (!) and competion with companies other than Microsoft. If Microsoft was split in three companies that do the same things all you have is Microsoft competing against 'itself'. Other companies would still face the same barriers to entry they have today, only more so, since they have three 'Microsofts to contend with.
You are correct in observing that both companies will have a dominant position in their market. But neither would control the entire desktop. And that's the point.
Steve M
The point isn't that Microsoft integrated IE into the OS. Nor is it that Microsoft is a monopoly.
Both of these are ok.
The problem is what Microsoft did with its monopoly power, of which integrating IE is just one example.
Microsoft didn't integrate IE because they thought it would benefit users. They did it to lock Netscape and any other browser out of the market, Why, because Microsoft saw the browser as a new platform that could make the OS superfluous.
As I said this is just one example of Microsofts behavior, aka extend and embrace. And that (along with an incompetent legal team) is why the DOJ is looking to break them up.
Steve M
Now, let me get this straight. You're in the UK. The store is in the US.
Assumptions:
1. You've never been to this store in person.
2. You're not famous.
3. They have no idea what you look like.
So what does providing a photo prove? If I was going to use a credit card fraudulently, I'd steal the card. Take a picture of Joe Random Stranger, and send them off to the merchant.
Until such time that there is an international databse of people's photos, this should work just fine.
So either these guys are clueless or it's a scam. I'd shop elsewhere.
Steve M
The music industry _built_ popular music. This genre of music, by definition, does not exist without records.
A curious definition. A better one is non-Classical music. The music industry turned popular music into a multi-billion dollar business. But the only 'genre' of music that doesn't exist without 'records' (and tapes, and CDs, etc.) is recorded music.
I suppose in one sense this is true. If Lars and the boys had not grown up in a culture where recorded music existed and thus had plenty of role models for a career as a rock and roll musician, then there would probably be no Metallica. But there have been plenty of bands that have come and gone without the help of record companies.
But you're not refering to bands are you? What you really mean is that without record companies Metallica the money making machine would not exist.
Name ONE musician who has achieved national stardom, without money from a record company.
Is national stardom the criteia by which we should judge musical execellence? I shudder to think it! I almost never listen to the radio because the 'music' (what little they play between the DJ's, excuse me, on air personality's, insipid blathering) is crap.
But this is a red herring. How many TV stars were there when that medium was new? Radio stars just after radio is invented? How long was it before the first recording star? Give it time.
Last I checked, nobody had any beef with independent artists putting out their own music.
Simply because the record companies knew it wasn't cost effective. But technology is rapidly changing that. And that's what scares the record companies. That every artist could be an independant and 'make it' without them.
Steve M