Maybe it's time for capitalism and the free market thinkers to acknowledge the fact that corporations have as much power to destroy the balance of the free market, as the governments. A corporation is a quasi monopoly. Or we could start by saying that temporary monopolies like copyright and patents were never meant to enter the hands of powerful entities, such as corporations. The potential for abuse is too great. The copyright or patent should end as soon as the artist or inventor has been payed by selling his invention to a corporation. The corporations should pay for the right to publish the work or use the invention, not for a tool with which to kill competition.
Lies! Libertarianism is not about trading election money in exchange for government sanctioned monopolies. That's what we have now, and it sure is no libertarianism.
Well, the Apache 2.0-licensed, publicly available (on Git) code may not get you "locked in" and "manipulated to be incompatible", but the version MS will have in IE12, with very cool extensions that they won't give the code to, or may work only on one OS, might make you sorry you jumped on the TypeScript ship.
How can you call lax copyright laws socialist? In a socialist system you have more protection from the government, not less. Plus copyright law creates monopolies and that is a problem in a capitalist system, but not in a socialist one.
Plus, the parent's analogy is not correct. The correct one would be: can federal institutions of the United States of America create laws that apply to the member States?
He says: "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and viceversa, and that means they are not interchangeable", so no prior art.
By this reasoning Samsung is not infringing, because you can not take Samsung software and run it on Apple "processor", or viceversa.
You are either not from the USA or you don't love your country enough to know about what her heroes died for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
See, the Constitution says there are rights you can not sign away. EXACTLY the ones you mention! Isn't that a strange coincidence.
Where did you get the impression that this was about open source at all? nVidia had no/crappy Linux support for one of their products. When a group of volunteers started to work on fixing that, nVidia didn't help them at all. That's the problem, they could have fixed it themselves but they didn't, well not in the "same-day" support they are claiming (I understand that after half a year they released something that doesn't work well), and they didn't help volunteers that would do it for them (probably because of the open-source concern).
So I guess Linus would be happy with any kind of support, open or proprietary, but nVidia refuses both.
Funny you don't understand why: you get the power of the PandaBoard, at the price of two Arduinos.
You probably don't understand because you are comparing the Raspberry Pi with the PandaBoard when it comes to power and to Arduino when it comes to price. Try turning that around. Raspberry Pi is comparable in power with PandaBoard, maybe a bit less powerful, but is half the price!
Raspberry Pi is priced at around two or three Arduinos, but is ten times more powerful. Well, it's not even the same architecture, so I don't understand how you can't understand that someone who would want a cheap 32 bit machine, can't buy an Arduino! And if we talk about RAM, Arduino's can go over a bunch of kilobytes (usually 8), while Raspberry Pi is in the hundreds of megabytes league. Don't you see that your comparing cars to bicycles?
No, GPL exists to make the users AND the users of my users free. It is making sure that my software is never part of a proccess that robs any users of their freedom.
It is like a telecomunications company that makes sure that it doesn't step on the freedoms of their users, and if it supplies services to others, companies or governments, it also makes sure that they don't supply them to those that use them to subjugate their users or their people.
BSD is about puting it out there and saying "I don't care how others use it".
Maybe there is an important lesson to be learned here: if users shouldn't be able to sell their rights of making copies, then the copyright holder shouldn't be able to sell their monopoly rights either. Otherwise the content creators can spread unfair advantages between players in another industry that is not creating content (only distributing).
So, a monopoly is the only way in which we can reward content creators, but is it ok if the creator can spread it in other areas of the economy where monopolies do great harm?
From the begining of Java, until this day, Sun/Oracle have not been able to write a decent browser plugin to run graphics/GUI applications.
How much luck would they have had with an embeded environment to do the same?
There lies the reason for Google going on to make their own implementation with different graphics/GUI libraries. And they sue Google because it did something they failed at? Pathetic!
The planar process was developed by Jean Hoerni, born in Geneva, Switzerland (moved to the USA in 1952).
The invention of the computer (as a general purpose programmable machine) goes to Charles Babbage in 1837 (supposed to be mechanical), a Brit, in UK. The first built programmable electro-mechanical computer was created by Konrad Zuse in Germany in 1941. The first programmable electronic computer was the Colossus, built in 1943 by Tommy Flowers a British guy, in the UK.
The design of the first modern DIGITAL computer is indeed American.
And since you are talking about "scientists" and technological inventions, it could be interesting to see how much of the technology invented in the USA was made possible by immigrant scientists and engineers. I'm sure we can create a bigger list than the one you mention.
Well, it's a clock. One that's not running very smoothly.
At least they manage to use up the whole CPU for drawing some arcs, that must be a incredible accomplishment.
Reminds me of the 8bit computer days when some were using fast asm routines to draw circles, some were doing it painfully slow with BASIC.
When SOPA/PIPA were rejected, this success was attributed to the outcry and protest of the people. In fact the people had the support of a number of BIG corporations (like Google) who also felt threatened by the bills. Now that the corporations have been made partners and exempted from the bad effects, it's just us. We will see how well we do on our own, but I'm not very optimistic.
I don't think it's possible, since the components don't change state. I tried to use the random escapes of the ball to make it go around in my machine a number of times then on an escapement, get thrown to the output. But the escapes happen in such strange ways, they seem to be just bugs (totally defy the logic of the component), so even that is not much fun, being so random and illogical.
It seems strange to criticize FPS-RPGs, as being "not true RPGs" since from the ancient history of RPG lots of the successful ones have been FPS: Bard's Tale series, Dungeon Master and Chaos Strikes Back, Wizardry series, Might&Magic series, Black Crypt, Eye of the Beholder series, etc. True, they only had a pseudo 3D, reduced degrees of freedom, but those were the technical constraints of the time. I always liked the top down RPGs, like the Ultima series, but Fallout 1 and 2 do not fall under that category, they are isometric, and in isometric games there is always the problem of a number of planes that are not visible. All in all, these are technical details that a good game can overcome through different means, but it seems ridiculous that people are complaining today about the technology they used to dream of having in RPGs ten or twenty years ago.
Fallout 3 is a good RPG game, very enjoyable, and keeping incredible amounts of the "feel", "atmosphere", and game mechanics of Fallout 1 and 2 (maybe you forget that like Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were real time not turn based, except for the battles), especially when you consider that the team that made it was not exactly the original team.
Right, because there's absolutely nothing arcane or overly complex about having to open a terminal window, read a bunch of man pages, and then issue two commands with various flags just to mount a disk image.
Learning to use your computer should *NOT* require knowledge of shell command flags.
I call bullshit on these statements, for trying to skew reality to make their point.
There are two use cases: 1. You don't have internet access and want to mount an ISO (very rare, almost impossible). In Windows your lost. In Linux you can do it if you have some knowledge (maybe requiring you to read some man pages). 2. You have internet access. In Window you google "open iso file with windows", find a page recommending some tool, go to their homepage or some downloading site (Softpedia), download the tool, install it, reboot (since it installs some low level drivers), and then figure out how to use that tool. In Linux you google "open iso file with linux", read the first two or three posts in a forum, open the terminal, and copy paste some commands.
In no way is that as the parents described: no reading man pages if you have internet, no "knowledge of shell command flags", and, to me, it seems easier to do with Linux, with the exception that next time you need to mount an iso, in windows you already have the tool installed and probably remember how to use it, while in Linux you have to search for those commands again.
Yes, that's how torrents work, you seed for the first people downloading, then they become seeders themselves (before their download ends and after for as long as they keep seeding), and so on, until the strain on the original uploader becomes minimal, exactly like the pirated distribution except the torrent link is not public.
Don't know about their costs, but they already offer the downloads through the bittorrent "network". So, people who use this option put very little strain on the network of the Humble Organizers, and share this "burden" among themselves.
The Austrian School [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School] is actually much more than "laissez-faire". They are sometimes called the “Psychological School” because they put at the center of the economic mechanisms, the human psychology, something the communist thinkers have ignored completely causing the failure of their ideas in practice. There is a wealth of ideas that have been born from this school and traveled to USA during WW2. Alas, they have not found much political support and have never been tried.
Check out their representatives like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek (winner of the Nobel Prize for economy)
Communism has failed everywhere, not because it's an ugly idea, but because it's a utopian idea, one that can never work in reality.
Marx wanted a state like the US, except where the people owned all of the shares of the companies they worked for rather than random investors..
There is no such thing as "random" investors. Investors are the ones that are willing to risk their wealth and spend their time and energy, by setting policies and strategies and pushing them amongst themselves, by investing in a business. They are not random, but require a special type of personality, disposition, mindset, will, etc.
What you propose, spreading the ownership of businesses equally among the working people, would lead in a lot of cases to businesses failing because of the "easy come, easy go" mentality, or the usual risk involved in any business, and in the end will create the same discrepancies (maybe even more accentuated) between wealthy people that have shares in successful businesses and poor people who have shares in businesses that have gone bad. At that point maybe someone else will come along and demand a new equal redistribution of wealth, and so on until everyone goes bankrupt.
So, good luck with that. Or maybe you can take some time to think about it and reconsider.
Slashdot Mirror
TL;DR
Maybe it's time for capitalism and the free market thinkers to acknowledge the fact that corporations have as much power to destroy the balance of the free market, as the governments. A corporation is a quasi monopoly.
Or we could start by saying that temporary monopolies like copyright and patents were never meant to enter the hands of powerful entities, such as corporations. The potential for abuse is too great. The copyright or patent should end as soon as the artist or inventor has been payed by selling his invention to a corporation. The corporations should pay for the right to publish the work or use the invention, not for a tool with which to kill competition.
Lies! Libertarianism is not about trading election money in exchange for government sanctioned monopolies. That's what we have now, and it sure is no libertarianism.
Well, the Apache 2.0-licensed, publicly available (on Git) code may not get you "locked in" and "manipulated to be incompatible", but the version MS will have in IE12, with very cool extensions that they won't give the code to, or may work only on one OS, might make you sorry you jumped on the TypeScript ship.
How can you call lax copyright laws socialist? In a socialist system you have more protection from the government, not less. Plus copyright law creates monopolies and that is a problem in a capitalist system, but not in a socialist one.
Plus, the parent's analogy is not correct. The correct one would be: can federal institutions of the United States of America create laws that apply to the member States?
He says: "the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and viceversa, and that means they are not interchangeable", so no prior art.
By this reasoning Samsung is not infringing, because you can not take Samsung software and run it on Apple "processor", or viceversa.
You are either not from the USA or you don't love your country enough to know about what her heroes died for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
See, the Constitution says there are rights you can not sign away. EXACTLY the ones you mention! Isn't that a strange coincidence.
Where did you get the impression that this was about open source at all? nVidia had no/crappy Linux support for one of their products. When a group of volunteers started to work on fixing that, nVidia didn't help them at all. That's the problem, they could have fixed it themselves but they didn't, well not in the "same-day" support they are claiming (I understand that after half a year they released something that doesn't work well), and they didn't help volunteers that would do it for them (probably because of the open-source concern).
So I guess Linus would be happy with any kind of support, open or proprietary, but nVidia refuses both.
Funny you don't understand why: you get the power of the PandaBoard, at the price of two Arduinos.
You probably don't understand because you are comparing the Raspberry Pi with the PandaBoard when it comes to power and to Arduino when it comes to price. Try turning that around. Raspberry Pi is comparable in power with PandaBoard, maybe a bit less powerful, but is half the price!
Raspberry Pi is priced at around two or three Arduinos, but is ten times more powerful. Well, it's not even the same architecture, so I don't understand how you can't understand that someone who would want a cheap 32 bit machine, can't buy an Arduino! And if we talk about RAM, Arduino's can go over a bunch of kilobytes (usually 8), while Raspberry Pi is in the hundreds of megabytes league. Don't you see that your comparing cars to bicycles?
No, GPL exists to make the users AND the users of my users free. It is making sure that my software is never part of a proccess that robs any users of their freedom.
It is like a telecomunications company that makes sure that it doesn't step on the freedoms of their users, and if it supplies services to others, companies or governments, it also makes sure that they don't supply them to those that use them to subjugate their users or their people.
BSD is about puting it out there and saying "I don't care how others use it".
Maybe there is an important lesson to be learned here: if users shouldn't be able to sell their rights of making copies, then the copyright holder shouldn't be able to sell their monopoly rights either. Otherwise the content creators can spread unfair advantages between players in another industry that is not creating content (only distributing).
So, a monopoly is the only way in which we can reward content creators, but is it ok if the creator can spread it in other areas of the economy where monopolies do great harm?
From the begining of Java, until this day, Sun/Oracle have not been able to write a decent browser plugin to run graphics/GUI applications.
How much luck would they have had with an embeded environment to do the same?
There lies the reason for Google going on to make their own implementation with different graphics/GUI libraries. And they sue Google because it did something they failed at? Pathetic!
The planar process was developed by Jean Hoerni, born in Geneva, Switzerland (moved to the USA in 1952).
The invention of the computer (as a general purpose programmable machine) goes to Charles Babbage in 1837 (supposed to be mechanical), a Brit, in UK. The first built programmable electro-mechanical computer was created by Konrad Zuse in Germany in 1941. The first programmable electronic computer was the Colossus, built in 1943 by Tommy Flowers a British guy, in the UK.
The design of the first modern DIGITAL computer is indeed American.
And since you are talking about "scientists" and technological inventions, it could be interesting to see how much of the technology invented in the USA was made possible by immigrant scientists and engineers. I'm sure we can create a bigger list than the one you mention.
Well, it's a clock. One that's not running very smoothly.
At least they manage to use up the whole CPU for drawing some arcs, that must be a incredible accomplishment.
Reminds me of the 8bit computer days when some were using fast asm routines to draw circles, some were doing it painfully slow with BASIC.
When SOPA/PIPA were rejected, this success was attributed to the outcry and protest of the people. In fact the people had the support of a number of BIG corporations (like Google) who also felt threatened by the bills. Now that the corporations have been made partners and exempted from the bad effects, it's just us. We will see how well we do on our own, but I'm not very optimistic.
I don't think it's possible, since the components don't change state. I tried to use the random escapes of the ball to make it go around in my machine a number of times then on an escapement, get thrown to the output. But the escapes happen in such strange ways, they seem to be just bugs (totally defy the logic of the component), so even that is not much fun, being so random and illogical.
It does not allow for predictable state changes!? Stupid machine...
It seems strange to criticize FPS-RPGs, as being "not true RPGs" since from the ancient history of RPG lots of the successful ones have been FPS: Bard's Tale series, Dungeon Master and Chaos Strikes Back, Wizardry series, Might&Magic series, Black Crypt, Eye of the Beholder series, etc. True, they only had a pseudo 3D, reduced degrees of freedom, but those were the technical constraints of the time. I always liked the top down RPGs, like the Ultima series, but Fallout 1 and 2 do not fall under that category, they are isometric, and in isometric games there is always the problem of a number of planes that are not visible. All in all, these are technical details that a good game can overcome through different means, but it seems ridiculous that people are complaining today about the technology they used to dream of having in RPGs ten or twenty years ago.
Fallout 3 is a good RPG game, very enjoyable, and keeping incredible amounts of the "feel", "atmosphere", and game mechanics of Fallout 1 and 2 (maybe you forget that like Fallout 3, Fallout 1 and 2 were real time not turn based, except for the battles), especially when you consider that the team that made it was not exactly the original team.
Right, because there's absolutely nothing arcane or overly complex about having to open a terminal window, read a bunch of man pages, and then issue two commands with various flags just to mount a disk image.
Learning to use your computer should *NOT* require knowledge of shell command flags.
I call bullshit on these statements, for trying to skew reality to make their point.
There are two use cases: 1. You don't have internet access and want to mount an ISO (very rare, almost impossible). In Windows your lost. In Linux you can do it if you have some knowledge (maybe requiring you to read some man pages). 2. You have internet access. In Window you google "open iso file with windows", find a page recommending some tool, go to their homepage or some downloading site (Softpedia), download the tool, install it, reboot (since it installs some low level drivers), and then figure out how to use that tool. In Linux you google "open iso file with linux", read the first two or three posts in a forum, open the terminal, and copy paste some commands.
In no way is that as the parents described: no reading man pages if you have internet, no "knowledge of shell command flags", and, to me, it seems easier to do with Linux, with the exception that next time you need to mount an iso, in windows you already have the tool installed and probably remember how to use it, while in Linux you have to search for those commands again.
More to the point, why do they expect everyone but themselves to adjust, so they can keep making profits?
Yes, that's how torrents work, you seed for the first people downloading, then they become seeders themselves (before their download ends and after for as long as they keep seeding), and so on, until the strain on the original uploader becomes minimal, exactly like the pirated distribution except the torrent link is not public.
Don't know about their costs, but they already offer the downloads through the bittorrent "network". So, people who use this option put very little strain on the network of the Humble Organizers, and share this "burden" among themselves.
Ahhh, how can I mod the parent up?
The Austrian School [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School] is actually much more than "laissez-faire". They are sometimes called the “Psychological School” because they put at the center of the economic mechanisms, the human psychology, something the communist thinkers have ignored completely causing the failure of their ideas in practice. There is a wealth of ideas that have been born from this school and traveled to USA during WW2. Alas, they have not found much political support and have never been tried.
Check out their representatives like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek (winner of the Nobel Prize for economy)
Communism has failed everywhere, not because it's an ugly idea, but because it's a utopian idea, one that can never work in reality.
Marx wanted a state like the US, except where the people owned all of the shares of the companies they worked for rather than random investors. .
There is no such thing as "random" investors. Investors are the ones that are willing to risk their wealth and spend their time and energy, by setting policies and strategies and pushing them amongst themselves, by investing in a business. They are not random, but require a special type of personality, disposition, mindset, will, etc.
What you propose, spreading the ownership of businesses equally among the working people, would lead in a lot of cases to businesses failing because of the "easy come, easy go" mentality, or the usual risk involved in any business, and in the end will create the same discrepancies (maybe even more accentuated) between wealthy people that have shares in successful businesses and poor people who have shares in businesses that have gone bad. At that point maybe someone else will come along and demand a new equal redistribution of wealth, and so on until everyone goes bankrupt.
So, good luck with that. Or maybe you can take some time to think about it and reconsider.