It's unbelievable how much you Slashdot FUD artists miss the point. Read my lips: collaboration!
You act as if somehow this magical collaboration concept dillutes the negative return on investment. Whether you invest 1 dollar or 30 million dollars, in development, the fact remains that you're going to sink more money in development than YOU can get out in the vast majority of cases. If anything, the smaller the investment, the less return you'll get per dollar investment because it's simply inefficient to develop software in a hodge podge fashion like that.
But if they're going to spend $10 million on MS Word licenses and it would only cost them $1 million to hire a few top programmers to add missing features to an existing 'almost there' Open Source package like OpenOffice or KWord, the best decision is quite obvious even from a purely greedy, hard business analyst's view.
No, it's not nearly so simple and even your own conclusion is not nearly so obvious.
First, for any given feature set where there is reasonably high demand amongst other parties, the proprietary vendor can better spread the costs out across the various interested parties. In other words, even if we accept that it only costs 1 million dollars to add feature list A into a software product, if there are say 100 interested parties in that same feature set, then the proprietary software vendor could offer each of those companies that feature set for 10k dollars a piece + profit, much less than the 1 million dollars in your scenario. And if this feature set is so limited as to only be useful for one or two other parties, the contribution is of little worth to the Open Source effort.
Second, there are few areas where something of significant worth to the rest of the world can be developed cheaper than the pre-existing products.
Third, in true hardnosed financial terms, not all money is alike. You must take into consideration the amount of risk undertaken and the time that it would take to recoup the investment. In other words, if that feature set takes an extra year to deliver, that's money lost by the company that could have been invested in, say, profit producing assets. Both of these counts really would deter most companies from investing in Open Source.
Fourth, companies today continue to purchase proprietary software of all types hand over foot without investing in Open Source efforts of the kind described.
Fifth, OpenOffice and KWord are not "nearly" there in respect to the overall quality of the MS Office Suite. They're still very much in that 80/20 zone, which means they have a very long way to go.
Sixth, the style of development that you suggest, where each party merely adds in a few "features" here and there, is a recipe for disaster. At best, it's woefully inefficient insofar as it would require a lot of re-work. At worst, it's simply unworkable. Some objectives are mutually exclusive. But even far more troublesome is that the methods of development that each firm employs can preclude the development of other firm's needs. For instance, while it may be required that every firm discloses its modifications under the GPL, the more self-interested firms may find that the extra cost involved in writing maintainable/modular/readable/upgradable code exceeds cost of writing crap.
True, much of today's OSS was developed by altruistic hackers, but that doesn't mean it's going to STAY that way as the infrastructure solidifies.
It's still just a theory, one which has many other theories and problems working against it. Open Source may have already demonstrated that people are willing to write code without owning it or being directly compensated, but that is not the same thing as being a superior producer of software of wide range. I, for one, believe Open Source has its place, but it's never going to replace proprietary software en masse.
since when does an NT implemantation go to large scale envronment. think SUN and IBM mainframe my friend...
Where did I say it goes to NT? No where. That said, there are many applications where Open Source solutions can't or are less capable of competing with the range of proprietary solutions in the server arena even.
It's not hard to understand why open-source software, such as the Linux operating system and the Apache HTTP server, is growing in popularity among corporate IT departments. When source code is open, any developer is free to read, redistribute and modify it.
To assert that this is a sufficient reason, or even a significant reason, is simply ridiculous. This view point is quite simply out of touch with the realities of IT. It is the rare IT department that has the time, the resources, the will, and sufficient need to justify spending the time to fix bugs in house (or to hire). Put bluntly, 99.99% of the time it is more cost effective to allow someone else (e.g., the vendor) to fix it or to work around the problem. In a large scale production environment, say, at Google.com, such an argument can be made, but this is not where Linux, Apache, and other Open Source software are making significant inroads. Quite the contrary, it is the lower-end (or as MS might say "back office") type of application where OSS is making its growth.
The growth of Linux and Apache mainly has to do with the fact that it can be employed more cost effectively in these limited low-end applications than even NT. By cost, I don't mean just the licensing costs, I mean the total setup and upkeep cost: installation, support, actually arranging the licensing, acquiring the necessary hardware, and so on. Linux and Apache get the job done sufficiently well at a minimal of cost.
Now let's examine one of our other questions: Why would anyone want to develop open-source software? All participation in open source can be traced to self-interest, and participation in open-source software development can be seen as a kind of barter trade. Participants donate the code they've developed in exchange for value: the opportunity to be part of something bigger than their own work, to influence the direction of a project to suit their needs and to achieve some measure of social status among their peers. Result? Both the participant and the open-source project get what they need. One such benefit that all participants and users get from open-source software is robust, modular and stable architectures. The reason for this is that all of the participants need to have their needs met. Modularity both reduces the learning curve required for participation and allows individual participants to concentrate on the functionality that directly serves their needs. And stability is in the interest of everyone.
This argument misses the point and fails to address the real question. Does it make financial sense to invest in the development of Open Source Software? In other words, do the benefits of Open Source software really exceed the costs? Merely "adding" to your own welfare is insufficient, if it costs you more. The answer is quite simply no when it comes to most software development.
Let's take the case of the Word processor. Why would a very major companany like, say, General Motors want to spend ALL (or even PART) of the total 30 million dollars and 3 years of development time that it takes to develop a full featured Word processor? It is extremely unlikely that they would increase their workers productivity enough to justify this on a cost vs benefit basis [Especially in light of more real world elements of finance and economics. e.g., Opportunity Cost.]. Proprietary software companies on the other hand, that enjoy intellectual property protections, get LEVERAGE when they make similar efforts. That is to say, that they enjoy not only their own savings but a slice of everyone else's savings (which is where the real money is). Furthermore, companies that are setup purely for the development of software are in many ways in a superior position to develop software more economically.
To put it bluntly, this kind of Open Source development depends on charitable actions (in a corporate sense, the only real justification for this is that it promotes the company's image) and/or on the rare project where the benefits accrued IN HOUSE are greater than the development cost. None of the above is enough to make the Open Source a major development ENGINE of wide varieties of software. This is especially true for the relatively less-visible but still highly costly applications. e.g., MRP systems, powerful photo editors like photoshop, etc.
What's more, Open Source software is going to, and does presently, fall victim to the 80/20 rule. That is to say, Open Source can get 80% of the results with 20% of the effort. Even the better regarded Open Source projects are perpetually in this state. It's the remaining 80% of the effort that it the hard hill to climb. Many would argue that not a single Open Source project has yet demonstrated itself capable of the last 80%: seemless installation, tight integration, good UIs, etc.
Many people less fanatical boosters of Open Source have taken the few words of apparent fear from Microsoft's management as proof that the whole of Microsoft is, and should be, afraid of Open Source. This is just grasping for straws. The fact of the matter is that Open Source can put a significant dent on MS' profitability, and thus provoke such words, without being a threat to the whole of Microsoft, never mind having the potential to go the next step and exceed MS. Open Source software hurts MS by marginalizing some of their highly profitable enterprises, namely: Linux vs NT, Apache vs IIS, etc. Besides the fact that this is almost exclusively confined to servers, the areas where Open Source is taking a bite out of MS is mostly on the lower-end stuff. The kind of stuff that IT will install in a pinch. You need web server to serve some internal documents? Simple, run Apache and Linux. You don't need anything more and you can do it with less of hassle than NT. Although the likes of Apache and Linux will likely continue to succeed in a similar vein, this is hardly proof of Open Source's self-proclaimed greatness.
This may be true, but....
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
this doesn't mean OSS is a direct threat to MS as a whole. MS' biggest issue with OSS is not that OSS is, or has the potential to be, a creator of vast and large quantities of the top shelf software, but rather that OSS threatens their growth in the server software arena. By creating software that "just" gets the job done, with a minimum of hassle, software like Linux and Apache can take a huge bite out of NT and ISS's profitability. Put simply, MS is realizing that the same economics and influences that lead from mainframes to Unix (proprietary) to NT, can also lead from NT to Linux (or rather Unix to Linux).
OSS isn't going to be fighting a line-by-line feature war with MS. If it does, it'll probably lose, MS has far more resources to throw at it. OSS's best chance to take a bite out of Microsoft is to go the other route: make software that can be purchased, deployed, and supported for far less. This means Linux should focus on things like bullet proof installation processes, automated installations, etc. Then it needs someone like Redhat or SuSe to effectively market it.
But the cotton gin made it's inventer jack. The guy who make the first tv also made jack from his invention. Kind of makes you wonder. Both inventions were made after patents were made available in the US, but the inventers both made zip. That also kind of makes you wonder.
This poster is dead wrong on the facts. Firstly, IP was recognized in the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, long before the invention of the cotton gin. Secondly, Eli Whitney did in fact file for a patent and recieved one. While it is true that he didn't make _much_ money for his idea , this needs to be clarified. The main reason he failed to make a fortune with his invention was because he charged too much and forced the farmers to bring their cotton to HIS machines. To compound his problems there were also some technical problems with patent law at that time that allowed the farmers to duplicate his invention and escape on technicalities. However, Whitney did make a fair amount of money for his time, just not enough for him to be considered fabulously wealthy. Furthermore, and this is an important distinction, Whitney DID in fact PLAN and have every INTENTION of making a FORTUNE off his invention (this can be found in his writing).
Even if we accept that a small handful of individuals were willing to innovate (accepting all the costs that come with it) without IP, this does not make IP any less necessary. Besides the fact that they can STILL invent even with the existence of IP, they are a minority. Most individuals need IP if they are to quit their jobs, spend their savings, and years of their life towards such pursuits. This is especially true of companies. There is no comparison between the amount of time/resources spent on innovation today versus that of before reasonably-strong IP protections.
Similarly, you could say that the RIAA's business model is becoming outmoded-- that is, holding an expensive single-provider monopoly on the distribution of easily-duplicated bits doesn't work anymore. It's unfortunate that this fundamentally flawed model may be the only way to justify the creation of content (although many would argue with that.)
You are choosing to ignore the fundamental difference between the two: that digital photography is organic and constructive while this filesharing is destructive and does not, and probably cannot, exist organically. Just because something is "outmoded" does not mean it is acceptable, good, or desirable.
Your argument of "outmoding" could be used equally well for physical property. Let's say, if car thieves obtained a new device whereby any car could be stolen quickly and easily without substantial risk to the thief, then car ownership is also outmoded. (God forbid we actually try to adapt law enforcement, distribution, and legal systems around it!) Of course, this completely ignores the ethical and economical consequences for society, but that's precisely the point....and while we're at it, we could also argue that privacy has become outmoded... (This is precisely the argument that Scott McNealy uses, much to slashdot's dismay).
there is a world of difference between new technology making old technology obsolete through superiority and new technology making traditional methods of protecting intellectual property harder to enforce.
Digital cameras, and other techological advancements of its kind, provide a superior and more economical service to all necessary parties. In other words, they are both superior and exist organically, that is to say, without leaching off the outside world.
"Advancements" such as filesharing certainly disrupt, but they do not necessarily provide a complete solution for all involved--even for its own continued existence (e.g., once novel IP dies, the need for those kinds of services dies). This much simply is not arguable. What is arguable, is whether or not such a solution is even POSSIBLE. I lean strongly towards the IMPOSSIBLE side, but nonetheless I think even the IP owners' critics should be aware of the difference.
I've had Comcast @ Home [cable modem], outside of Philly, for about 3 or 4 years now and my speeds are still flying [their routing is par none]. Downstream I consistently have downloads (from fast) sites in excess of 300KBps (yes, that's bytes) and often much faster. I've pulled well in excess of 900KBps with simultaneous downloads. While the upstream is not nearly so hot, I do average around 90KBps. It's slowed down nominally since when I first got the service, but I'm still pulling the quoted rates. My latency is also still excellent.
All this for about 40 bucks a month. I can hardly complain about that; my only real complaint is with their service departments (tech support and service), they're idiotic there.
But given the money, I really can't expect much better. I still consider it quite a bargain though. I'm getting everything I paid for, and more. I find it difficult to believe that DSL can provide a better value and, empirically speaking, they simply don't.
That said, even with certain mediocre broadband services, I find it difficult to believe that their relative lack of speed had much to do with today's problems. Besides the fact that it's still many times faster than dialup, not to mention less of a hassle once configure, most of the broadband companies were adding new customers on a fast as they could. Their problems are more financial. With DSL, the economics simply aren't there to compete against cable modem for the home user. With cable modem providers like @home, they've just made some really stupid financial moves, such as acquiring overly priced and troubled internet companies and maybe even underpricing the service a bit. I strongly suspect that the major cable modem services will survive. Even if @Home goes completely under, their existing cable modem service offers solid economics.
If you get a fast cdrom, a decent CPU, and a good ripper/encoder, like MusicMatch, the entire process takes no more than 5 minutes or so per CD and requires no interaction other than inserting/removing the CD and pressing the record button. I'd argue that it actually saves me time, since I don't have to spend any time now hunting for CDs...
Such as those on the RIM (Blackberry) pagers and Motorolla P900 (though those are much more cramped) are actually quite cramped. In case you're unfamiliar with them, you don't type on them like you do with a traditional keyboard, you just use your thumbs, as in the edge of your thumb. I've got fairly big hands and I can comfortably type ~30wpm on the RIM pagers. Ignoring space issues, the thumb keyboards beat the pants off Palm and PocketPC's handwriting recognition and other common forms.
That said, I agree with you, there should be better solutions out there.... Who ever invents one that:
A) can be implimented without taking up a great deal of space (at least when compacted)
B) can be LEARNED relatively quickly
C) allow proficient users to type comfortably upwards of 40wpm [especially in PDA/road-type situations]
will be in a real position to dominate the PDA market....
While finer and more up-close-and-personal methods will certainly be absolutely essential in killing Osama and his compatriots, these are not entirely sufficient. By attacking Osama and the Taliban on several fronts, we can vastly increase the chances of our special forces and intelligence agencies doing their jobs. Think about it, by forcing the Taliban to distance themselves from Osama, we give our forces a tactical advantage. By attacking Osama's financial resources, even if we can't get ALL of it, we increase the probability that his transactions with what he has left will be detected. By mounting a charm offensive and persuading the Afghani people, we make make the Taliban's position much more tenuous... and so on. This kind of war MUST be fought on multiple fronts.
say Osama, not to be confused with the Binladen family, has much less than a billion dollars at his disposal. The highest estimate of his wealth is around 300m, but many think it is much less than that, in the 100m dollar region. Granted though, that's X million too many.
Re:Palm does not force you to buy anything.
on
Pocket PC 2002
·
· Score: 2
Ok, so PocketPC has what appears to be a significantly better free package than Palm. I just don't believe it's terribly important. Those that are really interested in developing free software are not going to be put off by the PRC-Tools (GPL) additional complexity, they have to do even more for almost every other platform. Those that are apt to be doing commercial development are not only accustomed to paying for tools, but they can also afford to pay for it in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, I would suggest that most developers would rather pay a couple hundred up front and have a larger user base to target (in the sense that the installed base is already huge AND that Palm is and can be substantially cheaper), then get their tools for free and have a smaller base to target.
The fact that Palm's development is as huge and diverse as it is only serves to demonstrate how immaterial the costs and inconvenience are. This is true with corporate applications, end-user/retail applications, free/GPL applications, and even homegrown hacks. When Palm is starved of good and appropriate software, then we can say there is a problem, but I simply don't see it right now.
All I can say is that you must be doing something wrong or you're simply extremely lucky. You probably just aren't moving fast enough, but since there are no easy metrics to measure your rate of movement, never mind. FYI, I use PS/2 too on my laptop, for the same reasons, but I've experienced the exact same problems with USB.
Palm does not force you to buy anything.
on
Pocket PC 2002
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I happen to develop PalmOS software, amongst other things. Palm simply does not force you to buy anything, you have to agree not to rip them off to download the SDK, but this takes all of 5 seconds. Don't believe me, go to http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/tools/sdk40.html
While it is true that I use Metroworks Codewarrior for Palm, which is somewhat costly, I could have instead choosen the Lite version (free), GNU's PRC-Tools, or any number of other FREE compilers and tools. Furthermore, I would assert that most developers that really matter (as in those that develop software that is useful or widely used) are not even going to be turned off by the pricetag on Metroworks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need to already own VC++ or something to use MS' PocketPC SDK? They don't have a free alternative, right?
While I have not yet developed Windows CE applications, I must say that most of Palm's documentation is simply excellent, which is a stark contrast to my other development experiences with MS. In short, I have few complaints about Palm.
The question is, why buy more than I need when it costs significantly more, shorterns my battery significantly, and is generally bulkier and more fragile. Also, I can buy color if I need it (You get what you pay for). You can get wireless internet for Palm too. Why in God's name would you want mp3 on your PDA? It's not enough to listen to for any prolonged period and you can't use it for for exercise... A dedicated mp3 player is a much more appropriate solution.
You say Palm missed the boat. I say Palm has already filled the boat--several of them. Their current problem owes largely to the fact that people they've already filled such a large part of the market and most people don't NEED fancy new PDAs every year, be it Windows or Palm. These PocketPCs haven't proven themselves to be anything more than a NICHE market for a handful of techies and trend setters.
The long and short of it is that I would not at all be suprised to see the PocketPC's prove to be a money loosing operation, while Palm turns around nicely [especially since PocketPC's level of technology will be more appropriate later on], at least once the economy picks up.
You must not be moving it fast enough (maybe because you do have a high level of sensitivity set already). I really have been able to reproduce this problem 100% of the time with a number of different optical mice (I use the exact same mouse as you, 3 of them in fact, one for home, work, and the road, for my own uses--games and applications--same problem here). I don't believe that this has to do with different surfaces, processing power, mouse, or input (USB vs PS/2) as I've tried it in so many different settings. The explanation that the hand simply is not moving in a straight-line does not hold water (other than the possiblity that it serves to further CONFUSE the device), because:
I move my hand left to right, playing close attention to the start and ending position AND the path, making sure that the device is firmly on the ground the entire time, yet I see the cursor moving in VASTLY different, and often opposite directions. For instance, I'll move it 5 inches to the left, and see it move as much as 1200 pixels up (vertically) the screen (a long distance given my sensitivity setting) or backwards (in the opposite direction!!)--neither are explainable given the undeniable general path AND final destination of the mouse. I also know other people that have actually tried this and they've all reported the same problem.
From a financial and engineering point of view, this problem is also very explainable. Because the optical technology works by sampling and comparing the previous frame, it stands to reason that there is a point where each frame is too different than the previous [or maybe even entirely different] such that it's simply impossible to determine the direction and speed of movement by comparing the two. Furthermore, it makes little sense for MS (or ANY company targeting the mainstream primarily) to increase the marginal cost of each unit, thereby reducing their profits significantly, just to design a device that may make 1% of the population happier just 30% more often.
In other words, it just doesn't make sense from a cost/benefit point of view. I frankly don't blame MS for this (though I'm no fan of theirs), it's a completely justifiable business decision. There is no question in my mind that these optical mice will and should replace virtually all ball mice, but the fact remains that it has this drawback over the traditional ball mice [and even there, I'm saying that with my suggested workaround, it makes an overall superior mouse].
It depends largely on your surface. I've actually had the greatest luck with a green vinyl tablecloth (don't ask) which has a sort of wood grain under the effects of vertigo pattern on it. It's not a lot of color variation, but it seems to work very well.
Shrug, I've tried a number of different optical (though primarily MS) mice on various surfaces and had largely the same problem, just to different degrees. While the surface makes a difference, the problem never vanishes. I really think this is a pretty fundamental limitation of the technology, at least at the given sampling rates and computing levels. It's just not enough to persuade me to drop optical in favor of ball mice. It's not a problem for me, now, anyways, as I do really well with sensitive setting on my optical mouse. (Having few abberations on the optical mouse allows me to go more sensitive).
I'm curious though, try this with your setup:
Whip your mouse left to right (or right to left) about 4 to 6 inches. I'll bet your cursor jumps well up or down, and maybe even well in the opposite direction.
Or if you run at, say, 1600x1200 like me, position your cursor in one corner of the screen and try moving to the opposite corner as fast as you reasonably can. Again, I'd be suprised if your results differ significantly.
Actually, up until (IIRC) the late 70s, they did screen patents closely for merit. It's only been relatively recently that the "dump it off on the courts" philosophy was introduced.
The USPTO has surely relaxed a bit due to the drastic increase in the number of applications, but you're incorrect if you think the USPTO has _ever_ been the actual or intended determinant of the patent. Anyways, the courts don't have to overturn, they can simply declare that the product or service did not infringe on the patent, or even if they do, simply award nominal damages for negligible infringement.
The patent office needs to be reorganized to actually examine applications closely again, and WHO CARES if they make a damn profit. Any money saved by insisting that the PTO is profitable ends up being wasted in court anyway.
I never stated or implied that the PTO should be a money making operation. However, it is simply ridiculous to ignore the economic implications of operating the patent office in a given matter. This is true not just for the patent office, but also for the various inventors which file their claims with them. Put simply, not all patents deserve the same scrutiny, allowing market-like mechanisms to deal with it is a much more appropriate mechanism insofar as it does not waste resources on patents that are irrelevant or worthless. Most patents simply aren't even worth the filing costs, never mind the legal costs. [This has been true since the foundation]
While it is true that these optical mice have a much higher samping rate and, as such, tend to be much more accurate and sensitive, they also have a problem tracking when you move the mouse rapidly, where the old-fashioned ball mice do not. This can be a problem for gamers that are accustomed to moving their mouse in that fashion, it was a problem for me initially. However, this problem can be worked around if you just INCREASE the sensitivity [or rather scaling, so that LESS mouse movement is required to rotate the same number of degrees in the game] and learn not to move the mouse itself quite that rapidly [there appears to be a certain threshold where the problem vanishes all together]. Once this is done, the optical mice makes a vastly superior gaming device, because it is more accurate, but probably most importantly because it tracks more consistently overall [No more crumbs and crud causing your mouse to move around jerkily].
PS: If you don't believe me, just try whipping your optical ball mouse left to right, over virtually any surface, but particularly sub-optimal ones, and you'll see the cursor get totally lost and move in seemingly random directions.
But my beef about that isn't with Amazon, it's with the patent office.
That's not the patent office's job. It is not, has not, and should NEVER be their job. The USPTO's primary function is to act as a mere repository of claims. Inventors file their claim so that they can officially document what their claims are and when they filed them. When necessary, the inventor can take any infringers to court, using their fillings as evidence. The COURTS are the ones that are designed to resolve conflicts. It's only secondary and incidental that the patent office has any real filtration function whatsoever--the primary objective there is to keep the Signal to Noise ratio as a reasonable level. They do this by doing some nominal checking for prior art (which there clearly isn't any in 1-click's case) and through other means. But it's not intended to be THE decider of worth or originality.
Anyways, the point is:
Don't blame the patent office. Blame the courts or blame the applicant, where appropriate.
Don't even necessarily blame the "system". Realize that ALL systems have problems, the question is whether our system itself is relatively optimal. I believe that if you take a few steps back, you'll see that the system, the way it is today, is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. [FYI, it works too!]
Think about it: Do you really want or think it makes sense to put all the hurdles up front? Consider how costly it is to decipher the various claims, prior art, research, and so on. It's simply unrealistic. Do you really want to give some gov't bureaucrat that kind of power if you're an inventor? Do you want to give up your ability to argue your case OR, alternatively, allow potential problems to resolve themselves.
True (minor oversight), but not terribly relevant
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 2
The fact is that even if you accept 1% unquestioningly [I could easily debate this point, e.g., certainly not ALL the prisoners would have both actively looked for work and be unemployable. Also the various EU stats have their own footnotes, such as welfare jobs (see France), etc], the US still has sizable lead on the aggregate. In fact, it's been argued by many economists that those that were unemployed during the economic boom were effectively (and will always be) unemployable. So it WAS an _effective_ unemployment rate of 1% or so (if you include your prisoner argument). Whereas in many parts of Europe, the unemployment rates are so chronically high that this argument simply cannot be made.
No, it's just not an American point of view.
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Making it expensive, difficult, or impossible to fire employees has major drawbacks. Put bluntly, the more difficult you make it to fire an employee, the more difficult it is to hire. The reason for this is quite simple, the costs in the event that an employee becomes unnecessary tend to far exceed the marginal benefits bestowed on the company by producing more goods or services. When the employee is productive, just small sliver of the revenues go back to the shareholders as profits. When an employee is unproductive, and continuees to be employed, their wage comes right off the companies bottom line. In other words, unless an employeer is damn sure that the demand for more goods and services will remain steady (or grow), they will NOT hire.
The end result is that:
The unemployed (all employees in effect) have a harder time finding work and moving around.
The employer has a difficult time staffing.
The shareholder has his profits pinched AND diminished.
The consumer (which we all are ultimately) has less buying power because the companies from which they buy goods are inefficient.
In the long run, the available work pool is also diminished because many workers that would otherwise be available are employed inefficiently [which is exactly what "your" laws do, almost by definition, because "you" feel the need to make it artificially expensive to shift employees around.]
Translation: It's really not good for anyone in the long run.
The most you can say is that in the short run it may sound good for the CURRENTLY EMPLOYED employee. However, when you look at this from an empirical perspective (e.g., unemployment figures in left-leaning countries), it's not good at all.
Now this is not to say that I support all firing and lay-offs. Firstly, I believe there IS a certain moral obligation to the employees, to try to look out for them, where it can be done reasonably. Secondly, there are indeed times when it makes more economic sense for a company to continue employing people even when they cannot be employed efficiently in the short run, but this is not what these leftist laws suggest. An employer that is looking out for his companies interests would (generally) do this automatically, assuming he is generally rational (which is a pretty fundamental underpinning of modern economic theory). The only reasonable difference these left-leaning laws can hope to make is that might prevent the employer from exercising his good judgement.
Ahem, no. Denmark has historically had some of the highest unemployment rates in Europe, venturing into 10% +. They only managed to turn it around this past decade, not coincidentally, this coincided with steps to ratchet back taxes and other elements of the welfare state. Last I checked, Denmark was higher than 5% at DURING the global boom (as in their lowest levels). For the sake of comparison, the US had an unemployment rate at around 3.9 percent during this same time period. However, even with the US's jump, we're hovering around 4.9%. It's a sharp jump for the US, but it's still lower than Denmark's unusually low, one time, rate. Furthermore, I strongly suspect Demark's has already jumped, or will jump, to a level much higher than the US [like I know most of Europe has felt the effects]. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong by showing me a recent official number.
Anyways, the fact of the matter is that there is no debating the fact that Denmark has had far worse unemployment on the aggregate, which is the only reasonable measure.
Anyway it helps to have 1.6M hard-to-employ people safely inside Gulag USA.
Not really, it's more of a drag on the economy. But even if you accept this, 1.6M may sound like a lot (and it is), but it's just.5% of the population. So if you add this into our unemployment figures, it's 5.5% if you take a pessimistic view. That is still a lot lower than most every other country in the EU on the aggregate (even ignoring the fact that they're not including the prison populations, albeit proprotionally smaller).
This also completely ignores other burdens the US faces which other most other countries do not face to a similar extent. e.g., large immigration of poor and uneducated people, pre-existing diverse populations, etc.
that legislating job security also has real costs to employees, employers, and shareholders. Put bluntly, the harder you make it to let go of an employee, the harder it is for a company to hire an employee. If a company can't let go of an employee when it is no longer economically feasible, they'll think twice about hiring. Whatever benefit you gain by being able to produce marginally more units (or services) can be easily overwhelmed by having to carry a lot of deadweight around during a slump (it comes right off your bottom line). This inefficiency also inevitably ends up hitting consumers, which are employees themselves. Translation: It reduces the employees buying power.
You want job security? Prepare for a significantly more stagnant economy.
I would argue that many of the jobs lost in the US are jobs that may well have NEVER have been created in countries with socialist leanings. You want to talk about unemployment? Checkout those countries with such protections, they tend to be FAR higher than the US on the aggregate.
The typing is the easy part.
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
The thinking is the hard part. Of course, Katz doesn't have that problem; his writing rarely ever has to pass through his brain. It's terribly efficient when you don't need to be insightful or creative.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not nearly so simple and even your own conclusion is not nearly so obvious.
First, for any given feature set where there is reasonably high demand amongst other parties, the proprietary vendor can better spread the costs out across the various interested parties. In other words, even if we accept that it only costs 1 million dollars to add feature list A into a software product, if there are say 100 interested parties in that same feature set, then the proprietary software vendor could offer each of those companies that feature set for 10k dollars a piece + profit, much less than the 1 million dollars in your scenario. And if this feature set is so limited as to only be useful for one or two other parties, the contribution is of little worth to the Open Source effort.
Second, there are few areas where something of significant worth to the rest of the world can be developed cheaper than the pre-existing products.
Third, in true hardnosed financial terms, not all money is alike. You must take into consideration the amount of risk undertaken and the time that it would take to recoup the investment. In other words, if that feature set takes an extra year to deliver, that's money lost by the company that could have been invested in, say, profit producing assets. Both of these counts really would deter most companies from investing in Open Source.
Fourth, companies today continue to purchase proprietary software of all types hand over foot without investing in Open Source efforts of the kind described.
Fifth, OpenOffice and KWord are not "nearly" there in respect to the overall quality of the MS Office Suite. They're still very much in that 80/20 zone, which means they have a very long way to go.
Sixth, the style of development that you suggest, where each party merely adds in a few "features" here and there, is a recipe for disaster. At best, it's woefully inefficient insofar as it would require a lot of re-work. At worst, it's simply unworkable. Some objectives are mutually exclusive. But even far more troublesome is that the methods of development that each firm employs can preclude the development of other firm's needs. For instance, while it may be required that every firm discloses its modifications under the GPL, the more self-interested firms may find that the extra cost involved in writing maintainable/modular/readable/upgradable code exceeds cost of writing crap.
It's still just a theory, one which has many other theories and problems working against it. Open Source may have already demonstrated that people are willing to write code without owning it or being directly compensated, but that is not the same thing as being a superior producer of software of wide range. I, for one, believe Open Source has its place, but it's never going to replace proprietary software en masse.
The growth of Linux and Apache mainly has to do with the fact that it can be employed more cost effectively in these limited low-end applications than even NT. By cost, I don't mean just the licensing costs, I mean the total setup and upkeep cost: installation, support, actually arranging the licensing, acquiring the necessary hardware, and so on. Linux and Apache get the job done sufficiently well at a minimal of cost.
This argument misses the point and fails to address the real question. Does it make financial sense to invest in the development of Open Source Software? In other words, do the benefits of Open Source software really exceed the costs? Merely "adding" to your own welfare is insufficient, if it costs you more. The answer is quite simply no when it comes to most software development.
Let's take the case of the Word processor. Why would a very major companany like, say, General Motors want to spend ALL (or even PART) of the total 30 million dollars and 3 years of development time that it takes to develop a full featured Word processor? It is extremely unlikely that they would increase their workers productivity enough to justify this on a cost vs benefit basis [Especially in light of more real world elements of finance and economics. e.g., Opportunity Cost.]. Proprietary software companies on the other hand, that enjoy intellectual property protections, get LEVERAGE when they make similar efforts. That is to say, that they enjoy not only their own savings but a slice of everyone else's savings (which is where the real money is). Furthermore, companies that are setup purely for the development of software are in many ways in a superior position to develop software more economically.
To put it bluntly, this kind of Open Source development depends on charitable actions (in a corporate sense, the only real justification for this is that it promotes the company's image) and/or on the rare project where the benefits accrued IN HOUSE are greater than the development cost. None of the above is enough to make the Open Source a major development ENGINE of wide varieties of software. This is especially true for the relatively less-visible but still highly costly applications. e.g., MRP systems, powerful photo editors like photoshop, etc.
What's more, Open Source software is going to, and does presently, fall victim to the 80/20 rule. That is to say, Open Source can get 80% of the results with 20% of the effort. Even the better regarded Open Source projects are perpetually in this state. It's the remaining 80% of the effort that it the hard hill to climb. Many would argue that not a single Open Source project has yet demonstrated itself capable of the last 80%: seemless installation, tight integration, good UIs, etc.
Many people less fanatical boosters of Open Source have taken the few words of apparent fear from Microsoft's management as proof that the whole of Microsoft is, and should be, afraid of Open Source. This is just grasping for straws. The fact of the matter is that Open Source can put a significant dent on MS' profitability, and thus provoke such words, without being a threat to the whole of Microsoft, never mind having the potential to go the next step and exceed MS. Open Source software hurts MS by marginalizing some of their highly profitable enterprises, namely: Linux vs NT, Apache vs IIS, etc. Besides the fact that this is almost exclusively confined to servers, the areas where Open Source is taking a bite out of MS is mostly on the lower-end stuff. The kind of stuff that IT will install in a pinch. You need web server to serve some internal documents? Simple, run Apache and Linux. You don't need anything more and you can do it with less of hassle than NT. Although the likes of Apache and Linux will likely continue to succeed in a similar vein, this is hardly proof of Open Source's self-proclaimed greatness.
this doesn't mean OSS is a direct threat to MS as a whole. MS' biggest issue with OSS is not that OSS is, or has the potential to be, a creator of vast and large quantities of the top shelf software, but rather that OSS threatens their growth in the server software arena. By creating software that "just" gets the job done, with a minimum of hassle, software like Linux and Apache can take a huge bite out of NT and ISS's profitability. Put simply, MS is realizing that the same economics and influences that lead from mainframes to Unix (proprietary) to NT, can also lead from NT to Linux (or rather Unix to Linux).
OSS isn't going to be fighting a line-by-line feature war with MS. If it does, it'll probably lose, MS has far more resources to throw at it. OSS's best chance to take a bite out of Microsoft is to go the other route: make software that can be purchased, deployed, and supported for far less. This means Linux should focus on things like bullet proof installation processes, automated installations, etc. Then it needs someone like Redhat or SuSe to effectively market it.
Even if we accept that a small handful of individuals were willing to innovate (accepting all the costs that come with it) without IP, this does not make IP any less necessary. Besides the fact that they can STILL invent even with the existence of IP, they are a minority. Most individuals need IP if they are to quit their jobs, spend their savings, and years of their life towards such pursuits. This is especially true of companies. There is no comparison between the amount of time/resources spent on innovation today versus that of before reasonably-strong IP protections.
Your argument of "outmoding" could be used equally well for physical property. Let's say, if car thieves obtained a new device whereby any car could be stolen quickly and easily without substantial risk to the thief, then car ownership is also outmoded. (God forbid we actually try to adapt law enforcement, distribution, and legal systems around it!) Of course, this completely ignores the ethical and economical consequences for society, but that's precisely the point.
there is a world of difference between new technology making old technology obsolete through superiority and new technology making traditional methods of protecting intellectual property harder to enforce.
Digital cameras, and other techological advancements of its kind, provide a superior and more economical service to all necessary parties. In other words, they are both superior and exist organically, that is to say, without leaching off the outside world.
"Advancements" such as filesharing certainly disrupt, but they do not necessarily provide a complete solution for all involved--even for its own continued existence (e.g., once novel IP dies, the need for those kinds of services dies). This much simply is not arguable. What is arguable, is whether or not such a solution is even POSSIBLE. I lean strongly towards the IMPOSSIBLE side, but nonetheless I think even the IP owners' critics should be aware of the difference.
I've had Comcast @ Home [cable modem], outside of Philly, for about 3 or 4 years now and my speeds are still flying [their routing is par none]. Downstream I consistently have downloads (from fast) sites in excess of 300KBps (yes, that's bytes) and often much faster. I've pulled well in excess of 900KBps with simultaneous downloads. While the upstream is not nearly so hot, I do average around 90KBps. It's slowed down nominally since when I first got the service, but I'm still pulling the quoted rates. My latency is also still excellent.
All this for about 40 bucks a month. I can hardly complain about that; my only real complaint is with their service departments (tech support and service), they're idiotic there.
But given the money, I really can't expect much better. I still consider it quite a bargain though. I'm getting everything I paid for, and more. I find it difficult to believe that DSL can provide a better value and, empirically speaking, they simply don't.
That said, even with certain mediocre broadband services, I find it difficult to believe that their relative lack of speed had much to do with today's problems. Besides the fact that it's still many times faster than dialup, not to mention less of a hassle once configure, most of the broadband companies were adding new customers on a fast as they could. Their problems are more financial. With DSL, the economics simply aren't there to compete against cable modem for the home user. With cable modem providers like @home, they've just made some really stupid financial moves, such as acquiring overly priced and troubled internet companies and maybe even underpricing the service a bit. I strongly suspect that the major cable modem services will survive. Even if @Home goes completely under, their existing cable modem service offers solid economics.
If you get a fast cdrom, a decent CPU, and a good ripper/encoder, like MusicMatch, the entire process takes no more than 5 minutes or so per CD and requires no interaction other than inserting/removing the CD and pressing the record button. I'd argue that it actually saves me time, since I don't have to spend any time now hunting for CDs...
Such as those on the RIM (Blackberry) pagers and Motorolla P900 (though those are much more cramped) are actually quite cramped. In case you're unfamiliar with them, you don't type on them like you do with a traditional keyboard, you just use your thumbs, as in the edge of your thumb. I've got fairly big hands and I can comfortably type ~30wpm on the RIM pagers. Ignoring space issues, the thumb keyboards beat the pants off Palm and PocketPC's handwriting recognition and other common forms.
That said, I agree with you, there should be better solutions out there.... Who ever invents one that:
A) can be implimented without taking up a great deal of space (at least when compacted)
B) can be LEARNED relatively quickly
C) allow proficient users to type comfortably upwards of 40wpm [especially in PDA/road-type situations]
will be in a real position to dominate the PDA market....
While finer and more up-close-and-personal methods will certainly be absolutely essential in killing Osama and his compatriots, these are not entirely sufficient. By attacking Osama and the Taliban on several fronts, we can vastly increase the chances of our special forces and intelligence agencies doing their jobs. Think about it, by forcing the Taliban to distance themselves from Osama, we give our forces a tactical advantage. By attacking Osama's financial resources, even if we can't get ALL of it, we increase the probability that his transactions with what he has left will be detected. By mounting a charm offensive and persuading the Afghani people, we make make the Taliban's position much more tenuous... and so on. This kind of war MUST be fought on multiple fronts.
say Osama, not to be confused with the Binladen family, has much less than a billion dollars at his disposal. The highest estimate of his wealth is around 300m, but many think it is much less than that, in the 100m dollar region. Granted though, that's X million too many.
Ok, so PocketPC has what appears to be a significantly better free package than Palm. I just don't believe it's terribly important. Those that are really interested in developing free software are not going to be put off by the PRC-Tools (GPL) additional complexity, they have to do even more for almost every other platform. Those that are apt to be doing commercial development are not only accustomed to paying for tools, but they can also afford to pay for it in the vast majority of cases. Furthermore, I would suggest that most developers would rather pay a couple hundred up front and have a larger user base to target (in the sense that the installed base is already huge AND that Palm is and can be substantially cheaper), then get their tools for free and have a smaller base to target.
The fact that Palm's development is as huge and diverse as it is only serves to demonstrate how immaterial the costs and inconvenience are. This is true with corporate applications, end-user/retail applications, free/GPL applications, and even homegrown hacks. When Palm is starved of good and appropriate software, then we can say there is a problem, but I simply don't see it right now.
All I can say is that you must be doing something wrong or you're simply extremely lucky. You probably just aren't moving fast enough, but since there are no easy metrics to measure your rate of movement, never mind. FYI, I use PS/2 too on my laptop, for the same reasons, but I've experienced the exact same problems with USB.
I happen to develop PalmOS software, amongst other things. Palm simply does not force you to buy anything, you have to agree not to rip them off to download the SDK, but this takes all of 5 seconds. Don't believe me, go to http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/tools/sdk40.html
While it is true that I use Metroworks Codewarrior for Palm, which is somewhat costly, I could have instead choosen the Lite version (free), GNU's PRC-Tools, or any number of other FREE compilers and tools. Furthermore, I would assert that most developers that really matter (as in those that develop software that is useful or widely used) are not even going to be turned off by the pricetag on Metroworks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you need to already own VC++ or something to use MS' PocketPC SDK? They don't have a free alternative, right?
While I have not yet developed Windows CE applications, I must say that most of Palm's documentation is simply excellent, which is a stark contrast to my other development experiences with MS. In short, I have few complaints about Palm.
The question is, why buy more than I need when it costs significantly more, shorterns my battery significantly, and is generally bulkier and more fragile. Also, I can buy color if I need it (You get what you pay for). You can get wireless internet for Palm too. Why in God's name would you want mp3 on your PDA? It's not enough to listen to for any prolonged period and you can't use it for for exercise... A dedicated mp3 player is a much more appropriate solution.
You say Palm missed the boat. I say Palm has already filled the boat--several of them. Their current problem owes largely to the fact that people they've already filled such a large part of the market and most people don't NEED fancy new PDAs every year, be it Windows or Palm. These PocketPCs haven't proven themselves to be anything more than a NICHE market for a handful of techies and trend setters.
The long and short of it is that I would not at all be suprised to see the PocketPC's prove to be a money loosing operation, while Palm turns around nicely [especially since PocketPC's level of technology will be more appropriate later on], at least once the economy picks up.
You must not be moving it fast enough (maybe because you do have a high level of sensitivity set already). I really have been able to reproduce this problem 100% of the time with a number of different optical mice (I use the exact same mouse as you, 3 of them in fact, one for home, work, and the road, for my own uses--games and applications--same problem here). I don't believe that this has to do with different surfaces, processing power, mouse, or input (USB vs PS/2) as I've tried it in so many different settings. The explanation that the hand simply is not moving in a straight-line does not hold water (other than the possiblity that it serves to further CONFUSE the device), because:
I move my hand left to right, playing close attention to the start and ending position AND the path, making sure that the device is firmly on the ground the entire time, yet I see the cursor moving in VASTLY different, and often opposite directions. For instance, I'll move it 5 inches to the left, and see it move as much as 1200 pixels up (vertically) the screen (a long distance given my sensitivity setting) or backwards (in the opposite direction!!)--neither are explainable given the undeniable general path AND final destination of the mouse. I also know other people that have actually tried this and they've all reported the same problem.
From a financial and engineering point of view, this problem is also very explainable. Because the optical technology works by sampling and comparing the previous frame, it stands to reason that there is a point where each frame is too different than the previous [or maybe even entirely different] such that it's simply impossible to determine the direction and speed of movement by comparing the two. Furthermore, it makes little sense for MS (or ANY company targeting the mainstream primarily) to increase the marginal cost of each unit, thereby reducing their profits significantly, just to design a device that may make 1% of the population happier just 30% more often.
In other words, it just doesn't make sense from a cost/benefit point of view. I frankly don't blame MS for this (though I'm no fan of theirs), it's a completely justifiable business decision. There is no question in my mind that these optical mice will and should replace virtually all ball mice, but the fact remains that it has this drawback over the traditional ball mice [and even there, I'm saying that with my suggested workaround, it makes an overall superior mouse].
I'm curious though, try this with your setup:
Whip your mouse left to right (or right to left) about 4 to 6 inches. I'll bet your cursor jumps well up or down, and maybe even well in the opposite direction.
Or if you run at, say, 1600x1200 like me, position your cursor in one corner of the screen and try moving to the opposite corner as fast as you reasonably can. Again, I'd be suprised if your results differ significantly.
I never stated or implied that the PTO should be a money making operation. However, it is simply ridiculous to ignore the economic implications of operating the patent office in a given matter. This is true not just for the patent office, but also for the various inventors which file their claims with them. Put simply, not all patents deserve the same scrutiny, allowing market-like mechanisms to deal with it is a much more appropriate mechanism insofar as it does not waste resources on patents that are irrelevant or worthless. Most patents simply aren't even worth the filing costs, never mind the legal costs. [This has been true since the foundation]
While it is true that these optical mice have a much higher samping rate and, as such, tend to be much more accurate and sensitive, they also have a problem tracking when you move the mouse rapidly, where the old-fashioned ball mice do not. This can be a problem for gamers that are accustomed to moving their mouse in that fashion, it was a problem for me initially. However, this problem can be worked around if you just INCREASE the sensitivity [or rather scaling, so that LESS mouse movement is required to rotate the same number of degrees in the game] and learn not to move the mouse itself quite that rapidly [there appears to be a certain threshold where the problem vanishes all together]. Once this is done, the optical mice makes a vastly superior gaming device, because it is more accurate, but probably most importantly because it tracks more consistently overall [No more crumbs and crud causing your mouse to move around jerkily].
PS: If you don't believe me, just try whipping your optical ball mouse left to right, over virtually any surface, but particularly sub-optimal ones, and you'll see the cursor get totally lost and move in seemingly random directions.
Anyways, the point is:
Don't blame the patent office. Blame the courts or blame the applicant, where appropriate.
Don't even necessarily blame the "system". Realize that ALL systems have problems, the question is whether our system itself is relatively optimal. I believe that if you take a few steps back, you'll see that the system, the way it is today, is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. [FYI, it works too!]
Think about it: Do you really want or think it makes sense to put all the hurdles up front? Consider how costly it is to decipher the various claims, prior art, research, and so on. It's simply unrealistic. Do you really want to give some gov't bureaucrat that kind of power if you're an inventor? Do you want to give up your ability to argue your case OR, alternatively, allow potential problems to resolve themselves.
The fact is that even if you accept 1% unquestioningly [I could easily debate this point, e.g., certainly not ALL the prisoners would have both actively looked for work and be unemployable. Also the various EU stats have their own footnotes, such as welfare jobs (see France), etc], the US still has sizable lead on the aggregate. In fact, it's been argued by many economists that those that were unemployed during the economic boom were effectively (and will always be) unemployable. So it WAS an _effective_ unemployment rate of 1% or so (if you include your prisoner argument). Whereas in many parts of Europe, the unemployment rates are so chronically high that this argument simply cannot be made.
Making it expensive, difficult, or impossible to fire employees has major drawbacks. Put bluntly, the more difficult you make it to fire an employee, the more difficult it is to hire. The reason for this is quite simple, the costs in the event that an employee becomes unnecessary tend to far exceed the marginal benefits bestowed on the company by producing more goods or services. When the employee is productive, just small sliver of the revenues go back to the shareholders as profits. When an employee is unproductive, and continuees to be employed, their wage comes right off the companies bottom line. In other words, unless an employeer is damn sure that the demand for more goods and services will remain steady (or grow), they will NOT hire.
The end result is that:
The unemployed (all employees in effect) have a harder time finding work and moving around.
The employer has a difficult time staffing.
The shareholder has his profits pinched AND diminished.
The consumer (which we all are ultimately) has less buying power because the companies from which they buy goods are inefficient.
In the long run, the available work pool is also diminished because many workers that would otherwise be available are employed inefficiently [which is exactly what "your" laws do, almost by definition, because "you" feel the need to make it artificially expensive to shift employees around.]
Translation: It's really not good for anyone in the long run.
The most you can say is that in the short run it may sound good for the CURRENTLY EMPLOYED employee. However, when you look at this from an empirical perspective (e.g., unemployment figures in left-leaning countries), it's not good at all.
Now this is not to say that I support all firing and lay-offs. Firstly, I believe there IS a certain moral obligation to the employees, to try to look out for them, where it can be done reasonably. Secondly, there are indeed times when it makes more economic sense for a company to continue employing people even when they cannot be employed efficiently in the short run, but this is not what these leftist laws suggest. An employer that is looking out for his companies interests would (generally) do this automatically, assuming he is generally rational (which is a pretty fundamental underpinning of modern economic theory). The only reasonable difference these left-leaning laws can hope to make is that might prevent the employer from exercising his good judgement.
Anyways, the fact of the matter is that there is no debating the fact that Denmark has had far worse unemployment on the aggregate, which is the only reasonable measure.
Not really, it's more of a drag on the economy. But even if you accept this, 1.6M may sound like a lot (and it is), but it's just
This also completely ignores other burdens the US faces which other most other countries do not face to a similar extent. e.g., large immigration of poor and uneducated people, pre-existing diverse populations, etc.
that legislating job security also has real costs to employees, employers, and shareholders. Put bluntly, the harder you make it to let go of an employee, the harder it is for a company to hire an employee. If a company can't let go of an employee when it is no longer economically feasible, they'll think twice about hiring. Whatever benefit you gain by being able to produce marginally more units (or services) can be easily overwhelmed by having to carry a lot of deadweight around during a slump (it comes right off your bottom line). This inefficiency also inevitably ends up hitting consumers, which are employees themselves. Translation: It reduces the employees buying power.
You want job security? Prepare for a significantly more stagnant economy.
I would argue that many of the jobs lost in the US are jobs that may well have NEVER have been created in countries with socialist leanings. You want to talk about unemployment? Checkout those countries with such protections, they tend to be FAR higher than the US on the aggregate.
The thinking is the hard part. Of course, Katz doesn't have that problem; his writing rarely ever has to pass through his brain. It's terribly efficient when you don't need to be insightful or creative.