Over the years Red Hat has stifled the competition so effectively that the number of Linux distributions has "declined" from 2 (Red Hat and Slackware) to 42 with new distributions arriving on the scene every week (Gentoo, Lycoris).
Good points, but on linux.org they list 184 different distributions. Also, RH & Slack were never the only distros.
With that kind of cash reserve, even with no IPR, facilities, or brand, you simply need an ambitious board with some GOOD ideas and the capability to pull it off.
This implies Liquid Audio has a somewhat viable business model, which it doesn't. The shareholders are voting on a proposed merger with Alliance Entertainment soon. Without the merger, Liquid Audio will just keep burning through their cash reserve until it's completely gone.
They have a duty to shareholders to maximize their investments. The best way to accomplish that at this point is to pay off their debts, cash out, and dissolve the company. If they want to radically change their business model, start up a new company and find new investors and capital.
Not necessarily, monopolies could form in just about any kind of economic system. In fact, non-market economies have monopolies (and no competition) by definition.
If you decide that you believe that a completely free-market is the best form of economy you must be prepared for the inevitable monopolies.
I don't believe a completely free market is the best economic system. I'm more in line with the F.A. Hayek school of thought. Governments should keep their hands off the economy unless monopolies are used to stifle competition.
The "free market" economy isn't about everyone being on their best behavior or people being ethical...it's the opposite. It just means there's no government regulation so businesses can do whatever they want. "Free market" economy doesn't mean different things, it simply means a market without government influence.
There are different definitions and degrees of free markets. The US doesn't have anywhere close to a completely free market. In some respects this is good, i.e. antitrust laws. In many other respects this is bad, i.e. ridiculous over-regulation, subsidies of any kind, and minimum wage being the most glaring examples.
So if Bill Gates owns a huge software empire and decided to expand into public utilities, hardware or even bathroom supplies, so be it. Sink or swim, small businesses.
I agree, as long as Microsoft didn't start applying their historically unethical business practices to these markets. I can just imagine getting a utility bill, requiring me to completely re-wire my house and buy all new appliances for Electricity 2.0 because Microsoft stops supporting 120v/60Hz.
You're not an engineer, are you?
Actually I am, of the civil persuasion. But what relevance does it have to do with this discussion?
All communism is evil. A free-market economy is what is best for the world...Bill Gates is evil.
This is a perfectly logical statement. Competition is required for free markets to work properly. Microsoft (Bill Gates) uses their monopoly to destroy competition.
Here's the catch: do all the ME stuff first, get it done in 8 semesters, then go for the mind expanders, with a couple graduate classes interspersed. This way, if you can't fund the liberal arts stuff, you can still apply to graduate with a BSME, but if you do, then you can get 2 bachelor's degrees in 6 years with most of a master's thrown in.
Unfortunately, many schools won't count those graduate credits towards a graduate degree.
At my school (U of MN), they would count for your undergraduate studies though. You must be enrolled in graduate school for them to count towards a master's degree.
Not quite the same as Sony. At least the Playstation was a somewhat original, innovative platform in its day. The XBox is literally just a low end PC (by today's standard) with a hot graphics card, albeit with a restrictive BIOS/firmware.
If that's true, how come it is having such an easy time competing with the PS2 or GameCube?
Processing power was exactly what I was talking about. You obviously don't know how to make a cogent argument then. The 4 posts above it in the thread were talking about market share. If you're going to change the subject abruptly like that, you should inform your audience you're doing so.
But on your point, any current low end PC has a lot more general purpose processing power than every game console. Therefore, it only takes the equivalent of a low end PC to compete.
If that's true, how come it is having such an easy time competing with the PS2 or GameCube?
One word: marketing. MS has so much cash lying around, they can afford to spend hundreds of millions on marketing. Remember, the better product doesn't always win (Remember Beta vs VHS?), but the better marketed product usually does. They could sell (literal) crap if they spent some money marketing it.
Sorry but I'm just not buying this whole 'internet appliance' story. There is no web browser with the XBOX. There is no mouse and keyboard. There is no XBOX version of Office. Wanna know why? It's because it's a game machine. They're not going to extend their monopoly with it. They're going to make money off it by selling games.
They've just started their XBox online service. I don't ever expect there to be a version of Office for the XBox. And I don't think it'll replace desktop computers. But I think they'll eventually enable them to be used as only an internet appliance, i.e. e-mail, some browsing (maybe MSN only), and possibly (when broadband finally takes off) music & movies on demand (with authentication & payment via Passport, MS taking a cut from each transaction).
The only reason people think this is because they watched Robocop one too many times.
Not at all. I'm basing my predictions on Microsoft's previous behavior.
Here in CA, the main impact of the Sierra Club is in organizing many fine hikes and local trips.
This is why I support the Sierra Club. It does political lobbying but also puts together some really fun outreach.
Maybe your local chapter is OK, but supporting them also supports their political lobbying. They used to be a reputable organization, but they've really gone down the tubes.
For a really good organization in your area, check out the Nature Conservancy (or alt. website for CA). They also have hikes and trips, but even better, they purchase lots of land and preserve it in its natural state.
Near LA, they own most of Santa Cruz Island. They also have other projects between Ventura & LA and in the Santa Ana Mountains between LA & San Diego.
However, that does not automatically make XBOX some strange attempt to enforce that monopoly.
The XBox isn't an attempt to enforce their monopoly, but to extend it.
They've already got the desktop locked up (market-wise & regular crashes:). They now have a large share of the low to mid-range server market, to the point that many clueless managers don't know alternatives exist. They also have a foothold in the handheld/PDA market. The game console (eventually transforming into internet appliance) is the next logical step. They tried to enter this market by buying WebTV, but it never took off like they thought it would.
MS invested in a new market the same way Sony did, and it could really pay off for them.
Not quite the same as Sony. At least the Playstation was a somewhat original, innovative platform in its day. The XBox is literally just a low end PC (by today's standard) with a hot graphics card, albeit with a restrictive BIOS/firmware.
MS is losing $ on XBox hardware sales. If the LinuXBox people can get Linux running reliably on the XBox, thousands of geeks like us will probably rush out to buy an XBox for decent priced, small sized Linux boxes. If they don't buy any games, MS won't make up their losses, and lose their bid to control yet another market.
Pheasants Forever? Pheasants are a native of Asia that don't belong in North America. You might as well support the Kudzu Society or Snakeheads Forever...
They were originally from Asia, but they're here to stay. They've adapted well to the Midwest, and live side by side with native flora and fauna.
Wildlife managment for hunting purposes != conservation.
In your mind only.
Ever notice that hunting groups are always trying to "control populations" of deer and other species through hunting, not re-introduction of the original predators that would actually balance the ecosystem?
We humans are one of its original predators. Besides, unless we turn back the clock and destroy every urban area and bring back the original prairies and forests, re-introduction of any species would eventually stabilize near present population levels.
The ecosystem always balances itself. For example, there are more than 10 times the population of white-tailed deer in America than when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. We can either regulate hunting to manage the deer herds, or have an even bigger problem with roadkill deer and massive starvation in the winter because the population is too high.
Also, previous attempts to re-introduce predators, like wolves in Yellowstone, have met lots of resistance from farmers and failed. Wolves once ranged all across the US, but by the 1970s were mostly gone. Coyotes then extended their range so now they're found throughout the US. The only state with a sizable wolf population today in the US (besides Alaska) is my home state of Minnesota.
Conservation by hunters and related organizations have done more for conservation and preserved far more habitat than all leftist environmental groups will ever dream of.
I wonder what RMS' and Torvalds' opinion of the matter is.
This is pure conjecture, but based on their previous writing, I think it would be something like this
RMS would go on a long tirade about how open source isn't the same free software, insisting they change the wording of the bill to say free software, and Linux must be referred to as GNU/Linux.
Many environmental organizations have been hijacked by extremist radicals and are no longer effective or relevant. These include World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, and others. Greenpeace has always been out of the question.
But it's great to see how selflearning robots and programs will start evolving now. I quess pretty soon computers and robots will be able to evolve faster on their own than when developed by humans.
Did you even read the article? In no way was this robot self-learning. They provided random instructions to it, a goal of producing maximum lift, and feedback whether it was progressing towards the goal or not. This robot would not have "evolved" at all without human input.
A robot has taught itself the principles of flying -- learning in just three hours what evolution took millions of years to achieve
I guess that the "Special Creation" theories no longer fly (ah-thankyou).
This research has absolutely no relevancy to evolution. Besides, if it did, it would actually help design proponents. The researchers designed the robot and software, gave it the necessary physical tools for flight (or at least flapping), gave it a goal to produce maximum lift, and provided feedback whether its actions were progressing towards the goal or not.
Interesting to me that the kids who have the cash (or are given the cash) to go to MIT feel the need to try and rip off the casinos...
They're not ripping off the casinos. They're using their natural talents, superior intellect, and some training and practice to win at blackjack, playing by the rules.
Casinos, on the other hand, bar card counters. Ensuring they keep profiting from poor old retirees and others who don't understand basic probability. Reminds me of a/. sig I've seen: The lottery is a tax for people who are bad at math.
We're not talking about common usage here. Mozilla is known well enough that a corporation trying to protect its so-called intellectual property would have been aware of it for quite some time.
If this were to go to court, the burden of proof that they just recently heard of Mozilla would be on their own shoulders. If they can't sufficiently convince a judge of this, and sat around for 4 years without challenging Mozilla, it would be promptly thrown out of court.
Which one appeared first is irrelevant to this discussion. In order for a trademark to remain valid, its owner must defend it against every infringement they're aware of. Mozilla is well known and AFAIK this is the first Godzilla's owners have even raised the issue. The 4 year period of inaction signals they aren't serious about keeping their trademark.
Mozilla's been around for what, about 4 years? If this company sat around for that long without defending their trademark, too bad! Any rational, impartial judge (if they exist) would throw this out of court.
Slashdot Mirror
They have a duty to shareholders to maximize their investments. The best way to accomplish that at this point is to pay off their debts, cash out, and dissolve the company. If they want to radically change their business model, start up a new company and find new investors and capital.
I don't believe a completely free market is the best economic system. I'm more in line with the F.A. Hayek school of thought. Governments should keep their hands off the economy unless monopolies are used to stifle competition.
I agree, as long as Microsoft didn't start applying their historically unethical business practices to these markets. I can just imagine getting a utility bill, requiring me to completely re-wire my house and buy all new appliances for Electricity 2.0 because Microsoft stops supporting 120v/60Hz.
Actually I am, of the civil persuasion. But what relevance does it have to do with this discussion?
At my school (U of MN), they would count for your undergraduate studies though. You must be enrolled in graduate school for them to count towards a master's degree.
But on your point, any current low end PC has a lot more general purpose processing power than every game console. Therefore, it only takes the equivalent of a low end PC to compete.
They've just started their XBox online service. I don't ever expect there to be a version of Office for the XBox. And I don't think it'll replace desktop computers. But I think they'll eventually enable them to be used as only an internet appliance, i.e. e-mail, some browsing (maybe MSN only), and possibly (when broadband finally takes off) music & movies on demand (with authentication & payment via Passport, MS taking a cut from each transaction).
Not at all. I'm basing my predictions on Microsoft's previous behavior.
For a really good organization in your area, check out the Nature Conservancy (or alt. website for CA). They also have hikes and trips, but even better, they purchase lots of land and preserve it in its natural state.
Near LA, they own most of Santa Cruz Island. They also have other projects between Ventura & LA and in the Santa Ana Mountains between LA & San Diego.
They've already got the desktop locked up (market-wise & regular crashes
Not quite the same as Sony. At least the Playstation was a somewhat original, innovative platform in its day. The XBox is literally just a low end PC (by today's standard) with a hot graphics card, albeit with a restrictive BIOS/firmware.
MS is losing $ on XBox hardware sales. If the LinuXBox people can get Linux running reliably on the XBox, thousands of geeks like us will probably rush out to buy an XBox for decent priced, small sized Linux boxes. If they don't buy any games, MS won't make up their losses, and lose their bid to control yet another market.
In your mind only.
We humans are one of its original predators. Besides, unless we turn back the clock and destroy every urban area and bring back the original prairies and forests, re-introduction of any species would eventually stabilize near present population levels.
The ecosystem always balances itself. For example, there are more than 10 times the population of white-tailed deer in America than when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. We can either regulate hunting to manage the deer herds, or have an even bigger problem with roadkill deer and massive starvation in the winter because the population is too high.
Also, previous attempts to re-introduce predators, like wolves in Yellowstone, have met lots of resistance from farmers and failed. Wolves once ranged all across the US, but by the 1970s were mostly gone. Coyotes then extended their range so now they're found throughout the US. The only state with a sizable wolf population today in the US (besides Alaska) is my home state of Minnesota.
Conservation by hunters and related organizations have done more for conservation and preserved far more habitat than all leftist environmental groups will ever dream of.
RMS would go on a long tirade about how open source isn't the same free software, insisting they change the wording of the bill to say free software, and Linux must be referred to as GNU/Linux.
Linus would probably just say "I don't care."
Some honest organizations I'd recommend are:
Audobon Society
Ducks Unlimited
Nature Conservancy
Pheasants Forever
ROTFL! That reminds me of the unfrozen caveman lawyer from Saturday Night Live.
Casinos, on the other hand, bar card counters. Ensuring they keep profiting from poor old retirees and others who don't understand basic probability. Reminds me of a
We're not talking about common usage here. Mozilla is known well enough that a corporation trying to protect its so-called intellectual property would have been aware of it for quite some time.
If this were to go to court, the burden of proof that they just recently heard of Mozilla would be on their own shoulders. If they can't sufficiently convince a judge of this, and sat around for 4 years without challenging Mozilla, it would be promptly thrown out of court.
Which one appeared first is irrelevant to this discussion. In order for a trademark to remain valid, its owner must defend it against every infringement they're aware of. Mozilla is well known and AFAIK this is the first Godzilla's owners have even raised the issue. The 4 year period of inaction signals they aren't serious about keeping their trademark.
Mozilla's been around for what, about 4 years? If this company sat around for that long without defending their trademark, too bad! Any rational, impartial judge (if they exist) would throw this out of court.