The software is a selling point across different calculator brands, but if you've already bought TI's calculator, they have no motivation to care what software you use. I'm sure they'd be delighted to see an open source solution for their calculator that was better than their proprietary option, and (as another respondant to this thread already pointed out), they might even start using it instead.
Why? What does TI care? They don't make a cent off of their software by itself. All of their money is made off of the hardware, and if there's OSS that's better than their offering, it just means they may sell more calculators.
I'll believe Bush is more currupt and power hungry than Saddam when he refuses to give up power in '05 or '09. (note: I don't think that will actually happen)
Is the fact that you have this software and your competitors don't going make you enough extra income to justify the cost of the software? If the answer to that is no, then go to your competitors and strike a deal. Since all of you need this software, and none of you wants to pay for the full cost of developing, for an organization that will develop the software (or at least the core of the software) in an open source manner. Then, all of the different companies in the market can invest smaller amounts of money into this organization in order to get everyone a better piece of software than anyone would have had developed on their own.
The other possible way to use open source is to make use of the open source libraries that exist to reduce the overall cost requirements of developing a proprietary piece of software (assuming the libraries are licensed LGPL or BSDishly).
Who would you feel more comfortable with running our country, the Teacher's Unions, Labor Unions, EFF, and the ACLU, or Big Oil, Enron, Clear Channel, and the pharmaceutical companies?
None of the above. They'd all screw it up even more than it is now.
Well, there is a provision in the Constitution for a constitutional amendment to be put through by the states, without consulting Congress, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that would be easy to do either.
Additionally, I don't see such an AI ever being cheaper than a human being. You still need to raise it as you would a child, so that it can develop the needed emotional responses, and on top of that you have the cost of manufacturing, and however cheap robot production becomes, it will probably never be cheaper (or as fun) as human production.
If we were electing the nation's Sys-admin In Chief instead of Commander In Chief, I might care about this. As it stands, this isn't going to influence my vote one way of the other. I will still not be voting for Carol Moseley Braun, regardless of the fact that her website runs on FreeBSD.
Well written post. I think a lot of people think Christianity played a much bigger role in the founding of this country than it really did. For me, though, this is actually an argument for not banning generic uses of the word god (e.g. money or the PoA). The founding fathers were not devoutly religious people, and many were openly agnostic (I don't know of any that were fully atheist). They were also very much against the establishment of religion by the government. Even with those views, though, they didn't have a problem with such uses of the word god, which i think makes a good model for us to follow.
(Full disclosure: I am a Christian, although not a particularly devout one)
As a sidenote, George Washington was unusual amongst the most prominent of the founding fathers because he was a devout Christian.
Actually, my sig is an unattributed quote of an anonymous redneck who was bitching about foreigners within in earshot of a friend of mine. Any relation to Ma Ferguson is purely coincidental.
Well, fines aren't meant to be indicitive of what monetary damages were done, but are rather meant to be set at a level high enough to keep you from doing it. The last time I got caught speeding, I didn't do $80 in damages to anyone, but I still got ticketed for that.
As for the jail time, he won't serve anywhere close to that. Even if he gets the maximum sentence on each count, those sentences will almost certainly be served concurrently, not consecutively. It's not uncommon for white collar crimes to add up to rediculously high maximum jail terms, because they usually involve violating a whole bunch of different laws. It's easy to be guilty of 300 counts of fraud, but a lot harder to be guilty of 300 counts of murder. On the other hand, 300 counts of fraud will in almost every case be served concurrently, and 300 counts of murder would very likely be served consecutively.
I don't believe he suggested that there should be blanket protection of business for whatever they may want to do. It's a simple fact that the less business you have in the state, the fewer jobs there are, and therefore the higher your unemployment is. So, there needs to be a balance between protecting business and protecting individuals. At the moment, California has swung way too far to the left and as a result businesses (and by extension, jobs) are fleeing the state in droves. You can't force the businesses to stay, and going further left isn't going to solve the problem. Whether or not Arnold will go too far right remains to be seen (unlikely, since he still has to deal with a left leaning legislature--and probably will for his entire term in office), but Davis and/or Bustamanti(sp?) are certainly not going to turn things around.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like this.
The software is a selling point across different calculator brands, but if you've already bought TI's calculator, they have no motivation to care what software you use. I'm sure they'd be delighted to see an open source solution for their calculator that was better than their proprietary option, and (as another respondant to this thread already pointed out), they might even start using it instead.
Why? What does TI care? They don't make a cent off of their software by itself. All of their money is made off of the hardware, and if there's OSS that's better than their offering, it just means they may sell more calculators.
I'll believe Bush is more currupt and power hungry than Saddam when he refuses to give up power in '05 or '09. (note: I don't think that will actually happen)
If I remember correctly, he said that he was going to donate the money to something (don't remember what) if it was soldiers that captured him.
So, what should have been done by the U.S. ...
a) from the very beginning of Saddam's reign?
b) in recent times, given that things happened the way they did (since you can't change history)?
Furthermore, given what has happened up to today, what should the U.S. do now?
Because, when OS/2 was a relevant product, the Unix code was owned by a more sane company (Novell?), not Caldera/SCO.
I certainly hope they're using UDP. TCP would seem to have a bit too high latency to be practical.
Hmm... multicasting would be a bitch.
Is the fact that you have this software and your competitors don't going make you enough extra income to justify the cost of the software? If the answer to that is no, then go to your competitors and strike a deal. Since all of you need this software, and none of you wants to pay for the full cost of developing, for an organization that will develop the software (or at least the core of the software) in an open source manner. Then, all of the different companies in the market can invest smaller amounts of money into this organization in order to get everyone a better piece of software than anyone would have had developed on their own.
The other possible way to use open source is to make use of the open source libraries that exist to reduce the overall cost requirements of developing a proprietary piece of software (assuming the libraries are licensed LGPL or BSDishly).
In what OS? I do it all the time, in multiple versions of Unix (and no, none of the links are named happysunshine).
Well, you may have a point on the copying, but I doubt it would cost less to "raise" an individual AI than it does to raise a human child.
You can do it in OS X.
Who would you feel more comfortable with running our country, the Teacher's Unions, Labor Unions, EFF, and the ACLU, or Big Oil, Enron, Clear Channel, and the pharmaceutical companies?
None of the above. They'd all screw it up even more than it is now.
Well, there is a provision in the Constitution for a constitutional amendment to be put through by the states, without consulting Congress, but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that would be easy to do either.
Additionally, I don't see such an AI ever being cheaper than a human being. You still need to raise it as you would a child, so that it can develop the needed emotional responses, and on top of that you have the cost of manufacturing, and however cheap robot production becomes, it will probably never be cheaper (or as fun) as human production.
If we were electing the nation's Sys-admin In Chief instead of Commander In Chief, I might care about this. As it stands, this isn't going to influence my vote one way of the other. I will still not be voting for Carol Moseley Braun, regardless of the fact that her website runs on FreeBSD.
Oh, come on...
You know some geek out there is going to decide his vote based solely on this article.
Well written post. I think a lot of people think Christianity played a much bigger role in the founding of this country than it really did. For me, though, this is actually an argument for not banning generic uses of the word god (e.g. money or the PoA). The founding fathers were not devoutly religious people, and many were openly agnostic (I don't know of any that were fully atheist). They were also very much against the establishment of religion by the government. Even with those views, though, they didn't have a problem with such uses of the word god, which i think makes a good model for us to follow.
(Full disclosure: I am a Christian, although not a particularly devout one)
As a sidenote, George Washington was unusual amongst the most prominent of the founding fathers because he was a devout Christian.
Actually, my sig is an unattributed quote of an anonymous redneck who was bitching about foreigners within in earshot of a friend of mine. Any relation to Ma Ferguson is purely coincidental.
Well, fines aren't meant to be indicitive of what monetary damages were done, but are rather meant to be set at a level high enough to keep you from doing it. The last time I got caught speeding, I didn't do $80 in damages to anyone, but I still got ticketed for that.
As for the jail time, he won't serve anywhere close to that. Even if he gets the maximum sentence on each count, those sentences will almost certainly be served concurrently, not consecutively. It's not uncommon for white collar crimes to add up to rediculously high maximum jail terms, because they usually involve violating a whole bunch of different laws. It's easy to be guilty of 300 counts of fraud, but a lot harder to be guilty of 300 counts of murder. On the other hand, 300 counts of fraud will in almost every case be served concurrently, and 300 counts of murder would very likely be served consecutively.
I don't believe he suggested that there should be blanket protection of business for whatever they may want to do. It's a simple fact that the less business you have in the state, the fewer jobs there are, and therefore the higher your unemployment is. So, there needs to be a balance between protecting business and protecting individuals. At the moment, California has swung way too far to the left and as a result businesses (and by extension, jobs) are fleeing the state in droves. You can't force the businesses to stay, and going further left isn't going to solve the problem. Whether or not Arnold will go too far right remains to be seen (unlikely, since he still has to deal with a left leaning legislature--and probably will for his entire term in office), but Davis and/or Bustamanti(sp?) are certainly not going to turn things around.
Oh, like you wrote that...
Me smells a karma whore.
In other words, I call "prior art".
So? I didn't see anyone mentioning that Google was going to try to patent the idea. They're not Amazon.com.
Ummm... his math sucks. One million is 1% of a hundred million, not 10%.
I certainly hope that the tech support staff doesn't need to look up the answer to that question on the website.