Whether or not our minimum wage is too low is far too off-topic for me to get into, but it has no bearing on vote counters for two reasons:
1) The people doing the vote counting are not full-time employees, and are therefore not subject to the minimum wage the same way a full-time worker would be.
2) The people doing the vote counting aren't unemployed people pulled off the streets to do the counting anyway. They are in most cases quite highly paid professional types, often (always?) judges and other people involved in the legal profession.
Re:This will last real long.
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 2
Then they're committing fraud, and are in legal hot water themselves.
Re:Burn the observatory, so this never happens aga
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 2
The article isn't entirely clear, but my take on the "Clean up" costs is that the county spend $5000 putting in a wireless system, and then had to take it down a month later because he showed them it was insecure (thereby making the $5000 a waste of money). Hardly seems like a crime to me.
Since growth is what increases our standard of living, I'm not surprised that most people see it as a good thing. The problem is when you get greedy about growth and start bending the rules in order to get yourself more at the expense of other people. There is nothing magical about capitalism, though, that causes greed and corruption. Human nature causes greed and corruption, and it doesn't matter what system you have, they will still exist. The trick is to put in enough checks and balances to catch the corrupt, and that can be done just as easily in a capitalist system as it can in a socialist system (or any other system, for that matter).
This is slightly off-topic, but does anyone know how well the bluetooth support in 2.4.18 works? I'm looking at implementing an embedded device that needs bluetooth support, and would like to be able to use Linux.
My guess is that they're trying to recapture the hold on the education market that they once had. What better way to do that, than by marketing a machine designed specifically for educators (and available only to them). After the summer, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them release a consumer version of the eMac.
However, when there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, this is when the supreme court is most likely to take an appeal, to set a precedent which is binding in other circuits.
This is likely a good thing, though. It would answer the question of whether the DMCA is legal once and for all, and if past rulings are any indicator, the courts are likely to rule against the DMCA on this issue.
I care, because the more people run Linux, the more likely it is that I can be paid to write software for Linux instead of Windows. Business isn't going to switch to Linux if there isn't a company behind the distro. RedHat is in a position to be that company, and so I hope they are able to make it.
If they go under, Linux will continue, but not at the pace it has been so far.
When you factor in the fact that there is a lot more to be gained by buying a U.S. senator than there is by buying his Finnish equivilent, I would say that the U.S. is doing really well (which is of course different from saying that we're perfect).
A couple of months ago, I called up the Wall Street Journal to get my password for the web site changed (I almost never use it, and so had long since forgotten what I'd used). I began to tell the lady on the phone the password I wanted (which I intended to change immediately through their online system, since I have no desire for another human being to know any of my passwords). Of course, the password I started to give her was a "good" password, with a mix of case, and non-alphanumeric characters. When I told her the first case change, she interrupted me, and told me that I should use a password of all the same case, so that it would be easier to remember. I responded by giving her a short lecture on computer security, and continued with my "good" password.
I think it's a general problem that people aren't trained properly in what would constitute a "good" password.
Republican or not, the current Supreme Court has not been a lapdog for special interests. Since they never need to run a reelection campaign, they're also pretty hard to buy off. Regardless, though, they can have it both ways, if they are so inclined. The issue that will come before them is whether or not the states have jurisdiction in the case, not whether the case itself has merit.
On your first point: I in no way assume that the supplier is prepared to accept a flat rate. Once he increases his efficiency (i.e. lowers per unit cost), there are several things that can happen.
He can pocket the extra money he receives from selling the same amount of product, thus increasing his profit
He can increase the wages of his employers, thus ensuring that he retains these more efficient workers
He can take the extra profits he receives and reinvest them in production of a new line of widgets that meet some other market need, thus bringing in profits from two products instead of one
He can lower the rate he charges for widgets, thus increasing demand, and possibly increase his own profits
On the second point: I'm looking at software as a part of the production process rather than the end product. If I'm a producer of widgets, the I presumably make use of some software product in the process of producing said widgets. If MSWidgetMaker costs me $5,000/year in licensing fees and $1,000/year in support, and GNUWidgetMaker costs $0/year in licensing fees and $2,500/year in support, then I am saving $3,500/year. Assuming my widgets/hour rate is at least the same with either piece of software, my efficiency has been increased.
On the software production side, you are incorrect that commercial software has an infinite supply. The reproduction costs are effectively zero, but the producer of the commercial product has created an artificial shortage (through copyright laws/patents/etc.) in order to give his product value so that he can sell it, since a product with infinite supply has zero value.
Lets look at Linux versus Windows. Both pieces of software were produced, and so we can assume there was a cost associated with both (neither spontaneously sprang into being). Windows has a limited supply (MS picks a number each year, and produces that many copies for sale). Linux doesn't (anyone who wants to can go to kernel.org and download it). If we assume that the cost of producing both pieces of software to be roughly equal (probably true), then Linux is obviously the more efficient production method, since produced infinitely more products for the same cost of production.
What Mundie doesn't understand (or chooses to ignore) is how wealth is created. Simply passing wealth back and forth between companies doesn't create wealth. Paying taxes doesn't create wealth. Government spending doesn't create wealth.
Wealth is created by increasing efficiency. If I pay you $10/hour to build widgets worth $3 a piece, and you can build 4 widgets per hour, then I make $2/hour profit. If you figure out how to increase you efficiency and make 6 widgets per hour instead of 4, my profit has now increased to $8/hour. This can then be reflected in increased wages for you, fewer work hours, or a cheaper product. Regardless, net wealth of the economy has been increased, since more output is produced from the same input.
Where does the GPL work into this? Because one GPL application has effectively infinite supply, it drastically reduces input costs of production and therefore leads to a very high net increase in the entire economy's wealth. Commercial software necessarily leads to less wealth increase, because it has an artificial cost added to increase the producer's personal wealth at the cost of the whole economy's net wealth.
Mundie's argument is that the artificial cost is necessary for software to get produced, because there will otherwise be no incentive for the producers to produce software. The thing he ignores, though, is that obviously the software does get produced. If OS software gets produced, then it is out there. It has increased the net wealth of the economy. That increase will never go away (unlike the commercial company, which could go out of business). If OS is not enough incentive for the software to get produced, or OS doesn't lead to a solution that is sufficient, then the demand for a commercial version will be high enough that commercial development will be supportable. There is room for both.
Microsoft, of course, is just beginning to realize that the software they make is quite compatible with OS development, and there is no way they can compete with the efficiency of an OS product. Therefore, Mundie is arguing that we will all be better off if the economy's net wealth is held down in favor of MS's personal wealth gain. I just don't buy it:-)
On the other hand, he's absolutely right that there may not be as high a demand for software developers in the future. So what. So, a few programmers may have to change careers. They're smart people (and yes, I am one), and shouldn't have too much of a problem finding work. Yes, it sucks for a few, but where would we be today if we always held back progress in favor of old, established industries. Not to be cliche, but I'm sure the development of the automobile sucked for the buggy whip manufacturers, too. Personally, I'll risk my long term personal stability for the chance of great wealth increases for both myself and the economy as a whole.
Considering (National Security Advisor) Condoleeza Rice all but stated outright the leak had been deliberate on "Meet the Press" this morning, I think this was part of a strategy to make sure the rogue countries out there realize use of a nuclear weapon against us would mean direct nuclear retaliation.
It's also interesting to note that the plan includes a 2/3 reduction in our nuclear arsenal pointed at Russia (with no strings attached to Russian reduction). I think Russia will actually be quite happy about this.
You can only trademark names, symbols, and logos. I believe that Disney has trademarked "Mickey Mouse" and stylized Disney mouse head, with the circle/half-circle for the head, and the two circles for the ears. A mouse that looks just like Mickey does in the cartoons would be fair game once Mickey fell into public domain.
In reality, they could probably keep this from happening with trademarks. I'm pretty sure "Mickey Mouse" is a trademark of Disney, and that will protect them ad infinitem, as long as continue to protect it.
Although this is not a tactic I would take if Blizzard were my company, since I strongly disagree with it, I'm not sure that I can really blame Blizzard here. Piracy is a problem, and they are just trying to protect their investment. The problem isn't so much that they're using the tool available to them, but that it is available to them. The DMCA is a bad law, and we would be much better served trying to get overturned than we would be continually pressuring companies that use it to back down. Of course, the best way right now to attempt to get the DMCA overturned may be the bnet people taking Blizzard to court and attempting to fight the law. Unfortunately, I think it may take the Supreme Court to see the illogical nature of the DMCA and overturn it (although I actually have quite a lot of faith that they will).
Well, it's late, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time responding to this. I think you're a bit wrong on the numbers by saying that the U.S. has killed more people than any other country in human history. I believe you'll find that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are both responsible for more total deaths, although those deaths were largely internal rather than external. Despite your insinuation that I'm not, I am quite familiar with U.S. history and all of its many shortcomings. I criticize my government all the time, and disagree with a lot of what has/is/will be done by it. I still disagree with your statement that the U.S. is more oppressive than China, in large part because you and I can have this debate about whether or not the government is oppresive without worrying about going to jail. Furthermore, even though we may make mistakes in choosing our leaders, they're our mistakes and we made them. The Chinese people do not have nearly the same freedoms that we take for granted (in the U.S., and probably wherever you're from) when it comes to speaking against the government, or choosing the people who make it up. That's all.
Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone on Slashdot blindly champions open source just because it's open source (and is the cool thing to do). Many (actually, I would say most) Slashdotters are champions of open source/free software because they like the freedom it provides. A love of personal freedom for one's self, generally transfers to a love of freedom for others. Since the Chinese government is an oppressive government that denies its citizens the level of freedom they deserve, many Open Source advocates do not see the Chinese Government embracing Open Source as something to brag about (much as we wouldn't brag about the knowledge that the KKK used it to keep track of lynchings).
I have absolutely no problem with them doing this. The problem I have is if they want legal protection to allow them to protect this revenue stream. It should be perfectly legal to create a USB pass-through that modifies the region coding on a device in order to allow non-region devices to work. This is the same issue as with DVD. I don't care if DVD manufacturers want to put region coding on the DVD, but if I figure out a way to defeat that region coding, that should be perfectly legal.
The difference between standing outside someone's house selling keys to the house and a device like Flash Advance is that there is no legitimate reason for somebody other than me (and those I specifically allow) to have access to keys to my house. The Flash Advance does have legitimate purposes. The DMCA should not keep me from being able to develop software for a device I own, regardless of whether that ability also allows me to copy copyrighted software (how long til we can expect MS to develop a filesystem that doesn't allow the user access to certain parts of the system, and only allows "authorized" developers to write software).
It's not clear what illegal exclusionary and anticompetitive acts Be is talking about, but if it's JUST signing agreements to allow one OS to be the sole OS that you deploy, that's not illegal at all.
It most certainly is illegal, since that would be an anticompetitive act aimed at driving out the competition. If MS had only signed such a deal with some of their OEMs, then you might be right, but the fact is that they forced all of their OEMs to agree to that, and effectively forced Be out of the market (since forcing all users to install the OS themselves is not viable for a commercial OS).
In the end, I will be a lot happier to see them brought down this way, than to see them artificially split into several smaller companies, each with an already established monopoly in their particular sphere of influence. I just hope, as other posters have pointed out, that some of these companies fight out the lawsuits to the bitter end, rather than settling early out of court, and doing little or no real damage to MS.
1) Microsoft wouldn't have been giving free advertisement to the competition. The OEM's would have been doing that. Your argument would make sense to me if Microsoft was refusing to put the icon on the desktop themselves, but not allowing OEMs to do it is completely different. Also, the agreements _did_ prevent them from modifying the bootloader, which presumably included the bootloader menu.
2) I would assume that any machines which shipped with Be already installed would have all of their hardware issues already worked out. Money made from the sale of those Be OSs could easily have kept Be in business long enough for them to have successfully worked all of the incompatibilities out of the OS (the first time I installed linux, it didn't have PnP support, and look where it is today).
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not our minimum wage is too low is far too off-topic for me to get into, but it has no bearing on vote counters for two reasons:
1) The people doing the vote counting are not full-time employees, and are therefore not subject to the minimum wage the same way a full-time worker would be.
2) The people doing the vote counting aren't unemployed people pulled off the streets to do the counting anyway. They are in most cases quite highly paid professional types, often (always?) judges and other people involved in the legal profession.
Then they're committing fraud, and are in legal hot water themselves.
The article isn't entirely clear, but my take on the "Clean up" costs is that the county spend $5000 putting in a wireless system, and then had to take it down a month later because he showed them it was insecure (thereby making the $5000 a waste of money). Hardly seems like a crime to me.
Since growth is what increases our standard of living, I'm not surprised that most people see it as a good thing. The problem is when you get greedy about growth and start bending the rules in order to get yourself more at the expense of other people. There is nothing magical about capitalism, though, that causes greed and corruption. Human nature causes greed and corruption, and it doesn't matter what system you have, they will still exist. The trick is to put in enough checks and balances to catch the corrupt, and that can be done just as easily in a capitalist system as it can in a socialist system (or any other system, for that matter).
I would have skipped out of work to go see Episode II, but I had an important companywide meeting that I had to be at.
Of course, the companywide meeting just happened to located in the theater that was showing AotC, and lasted exactly the length of the movie.
My guess is that they're trying to recapture the hold on the education market that they once had. What better way to do that, than by marketing a machine designed specifically for educators (and available only to them). After the summer, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them release a consumer version of the eMac.
However, when there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, this is when the supreme court is most likely to take an appeal, to set a precedent which is binding in other circuits.
This is likely a good thing, though. It would answer the question of whether the DMCA is legal once and for all, and if past rulings are any indicator, the courts are likely to rule against the DMCA on this issue.
I care, because the more people run Linux, the more likely it is that I can be paid to write software for Linux instead of Windows. Business isn't going to switch to Linux if there isn't a company behind the distro. RedHat is in a position to be that company, and so I hope they are able to make it.
If they go under, Linux will continue, but not at the pace it has been so far.
When you factor in the fact that there is a lot more to be gained by buying a U.S. senator than there is by buying his Finnish equivilent, I would say that the U.S. is doing really well (which is of course different from saying that we're perfect).
A couple of months ago, I called up the Wall Street Journal to get my password for the web site changed (I almost never use it, and so had long since forgotten what I'd used). I began to tell the lady on the phone the password I wanted (which I intended to change immediately through their online system, since I have no desire for another human being to know any of my passwords). Of course, the password I started to give her was a "good" password, with a mix of case, and non-alphanumeric characters. When I told her the first case change, she interrupted me, and told me that I should use a password of all the same case, so that it would be easier to remember. I responded by giving her a short lecture on computer security, and continued with my "good" password.
I think it's a general problem that people aren't trained properly in what would constitute a "good" password.
Republican or not, the current Supreme Court has not been a lapdog for special interests. Since they never need to run a reelection campaign, they're also pretty hard to buy off. Regardless, though, they can have it both ways, if they are so inclined. The issue that will come before them is whether or not the states have jurisdiction in the case, not whether the case itself has merit.
On your first point: I in no way assume that the supplier is prepared to accept a flat rate. Once he increases his efficiency (i.e. lowers per unit cost), there are several things that can happen.
On the second point: I'm looking at software as a part of the production process rather than the end product. If I'm a producer of widgets, the I presumably make use of some software product in the process of producing said widgets. If MSWidgetMaker costs me $5,000/year in licensing fees and $1,000/year in support, and GNUWidgetMaker costs $0/year in licensing fees and $2,500/year in support, then I am saving $3,500/year. Assuming my widgets/hour rate is at least the same with either piece of software, my efficiency has been increased.
On the software production side, you are incorrect that commercial software has an infinite supply. The reproduction costs are effectively zero, but the producer of the commercial product has created an artificial shortage (through copyright laws/patents/etc.) in order to give his product value so that he can sell it, since a product with infinite supply has zero value.
Lets look at Linux versus Windows. Both pieces of software were produced, and so we can assume there was a cost associated with both (neither spontaneously sprang into being). Windows has a limited supply (MS picks a number each year, and produces that many copies for sale). Linux doesn't (anyone who wants to can go to kernel.org and download it). If we assume that the cost of producing both pieces of software to be roughly equal (probably true), then Linux is obviously the more efficient production method, since produced infinitely more products for the same cost of production.
What Mundie doesn't understand (or chooses to ignore) is how wealth is created. Simply passing wealth back and forth between companies doesn't create wealth. Paying taxes doesn't create wealth. Government spending doesn't create wealth.
:-)
Wealth is created by increasing efficiency. If I pay you $10/hour to build widgets worth $3 a piece, and you can build 4 widgets per hour, then I make $2/hour profit. If you figure out how to increase you efficiency and make 6 widgets per hour instead of 4, my profit has now increased to $8/hour. This can then be reflected in increased wages for you, fewer work hours, or a cheaper product. Regardless, net wealth of the economy has been increased, since more output is produced from the same input.
Where does the GPL work into this? Because one GPL application has effectively infinite supply, it drastically reduces input costs of production and therefore leads to a very high net increase in the entire economy's wealth. Commercial software necessarily leads to less wealth increase, because it has an artificial cost added to increase the producer's personal wealth at the cost of the whole economy's net wealth.
Mundie's argument is that the artificial cost is necessary for software to get produced, because there will otherwise be no incentive for the producers to produce software. The thing he ignores, though, is that obviously the software does get produced. If OS software gets produced, then it is out there. It has increased the net wealth of the economy. That increase will never go away (unlike the commercial company, which could go out of business). If OS is not enough incentive for the software to get produced, or OS doesn't lead to a solution that is sufficient, then the demand for a commercial version will be high enough that commercial development will be supportable. There is room for both.
Microsoft, of course, is just beginning to realize that the software they make is quite compatible with OS development, and there is no way they can compete with the efficiency of an OS product. Therefore, Mundie is arguing that we will all be better off if the economy's net wealth is held down in favor of MS's personal wealth gain. I just don't buy it
On the other hand, he's absolutely right that there may not be as high a demand for software developers in the future. So what. So, a few programmers may have to change careers. They're smart people (and yes, I am one), and shouldn't have too much of a problem finding work. Yes, it sucks for a few, but where would we be today if we always held back progress in favor of old, established industries. Not to be cliche, but I'm sure the development of the automobile sucked for the buggy whip manufacturers, too. Personally, I'll risk my long term personal stability for the chance of great wealth increases for both myself and the economy as a whole.
Considering (National Security Advisor) Condoleeza Rice all but stated outright the leak had been deliberate on "Meet the Press" this morning, I think this was part of a strategy to make sure the rogue countries out there realize use of a nuclear weapon against us would mean direct nuclear retaliation.
It's also interesting to note that the plan includes a 2/3 reduction in our nuclear arsenal pointed at Russia (with no strings attached to Russian reduction). I think Russia will actually be quite happy about this.
You can only trademark names, symbols, and logos. I believe that Disney has trademarked "Mickey Mouse" and stylized Disney mouse head, with the circle/half-circle for the head, and the two circles for the ears. A mouse that looks just like Mickey does in the cartoons would be fair game once Mickey fell into public domain.
In reality, they could probably keep this from happening with trademarks. I'm pretty sure "Mickey Mouse" is a trademark of Disney, and that will protect them ad infinitem, as long as continue to protect it.
Although this is not a tactic I would take if Blizzard were my company, since I strongly disagree with it, I'm not sure that I can really blame Blizzard here. Piracy is a problem, and they are just trying to protect their investment. The problem isn't so much that they're using the tool available to them, but that it is available to them. The DMCA is a bad law, and we would be much better served trying to get overturned than we would be continually pressuring companies that use it to back down. Of course, the best way right now to attempt to get the DMCA overturned may be the bnet people taking Blizzard to court and attempting to fight the law. Unfortunately, I think it may take the Supreme Court to see the illogical nature of the DMCA and overturn it (although I actually have quite a lot of faith that they will).
Well, it's late, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time responding to this. I think you're a bit wrong on the numbers by saying that the U.S. has killed more people than any other country in human history. I believe you'll find that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are both responsible for more total deaths, although those deaths were largely internal rather than external. Despite your insinuation that I'm not, I am quite familiar with U.S. history and all of its many shortcomings. I criticize my government all the time, and disagree with a lot of what has/is/will be done by it. I still disagree with your statement that the U.S. is more oppressive than China, in large part because you and I can have this debate about whether or not the government is oppresive without worrying about going to jail. Furthermore, even though we may make mistakes in choosing our leaders, they're our mistakes and we made them. The Chinese people do not have nearly the same freedoms that we take for granted (in the U.S., and probably wherever you're from) when it comes to speaking against the government, or choosing the people who make it up. That's all.
Contrary to popular opinion, not everyone on Slashdot blindly champions open source just because it's open source (and is the cool thing to do). Many (actually, I would say most) Slashdotters are champions of open source/free software because they like the freedom it provides. A love of personal freedom for one's self, generally transfers to a love of freedom for others. Since the Chinese government is an oppressive government that denies its citizens the level of freedom they deserve, many Open Source advocates do not see the Chinese Government embracing Open Source as something to brag about (much as we wouldn't brag about the knowledge that the KKK used it to keep track of lynchings).
I have absolutely no problem with them doing this. The problem I have is if they want legal protection to allow them to protect this revenue stream. It should be perfectly legal to create a USB pass-through that modifies the region coding on a device in order to allow non-region devices to work. This is the same issue as with DVD. I don't care if DVD manufacturers want to put region coding on the DVD, but if I figure out a way to defeat that region coding, that should be perfectly legal.
The difference between standing outside someone's house selling keys to the house and a device like Flash Advance is that there is no legitimate reason for somebody other than me (and those I specifically allow) to have access to keys to my house. The Flash Advance does have legitimate purposes. The DMCA should not keep me from being able to develop software for a device I own, regardless of whether that ability also allows me to copy copyrighted software (how long til we can expect MS to develop a filesystem that doesn't allow the user access to certain parts of the system, and only allows "authorized" developers to write software).
It's not clear what illegal exclusionary and anticompetitive acts Be is talking about, but if it's JUST signing agreements to allow one OS to be the sole OS that you deploy, that's not illegal at all.
It most certainly is illegal, since that would be an anticompetitive act aimed at driving out the competition. If MS had only signed such a deal with some of their OEMs, then you might be right, but the fact is that they forced all of their OEMs to agree to that, and effectively forced Be out of the market (since forcing all users to install the OS themselves is not viable for a commercial OS).
In the end, I will be a lot happier to see them brought down this way, than to see them artificially split into several smaller companies, each with an already established monopoly in their particular sphere of influence. I just hope, as other posters have pointed out, that some of these companies fight out the lawsuits to the bitter end, rather than settling early out of court, and doing little or no real damage to MS.
Two points:
1) Microsoft wouldn't have been giving free advertisement to the competition. The OEM's would have been doing that. Your argument would make sense to me if Microsoft was refusing to put the icon on the desktop themselves, but not allowing OEMs to do it is completely different. Also, the agreements _did_ prevent them from modifying the bootloader, which presumably included the bootloader menu.
2) I would assume that any machines which shipped with Be already installed would have all of their hardware issues already worked out. Money made from the sale of those Be OSs could easily have kept Be in business long enough for them to have successfully worked all of the incompatibilities out of the OS (the first time I installed linux, it didn't have PnP support, and look where it is today).