The mass does not have to be physical mass. In this case, it is financial mass. The laws of an unbounded system still apply. Are money and economics made up? Perhaps, but enough people believe in them that they are viable entities. Made up or not, in the world of economics, Microsoft is an extrememly massive body, and the positive feedback loop continues to add to that financial mass. This cannot be sustained indefinitely. It may not collapse this year or next year or even next decade, but it will collapse eventually. Just as there is a finite amount of physical mass in the universe, there is a finite amount of money, even in our "made-up" system. You can only make up so much before the whole system breaks down. Something has to give eventually.
and how if he can maintain his current rate of growth per year (over 35%!), he'll be a trillionaire by 2014
And this is exactly Microsoft's problem. As has been pointed out, they are obsessed with inflating stock prices. Their entire strategy is like a positive feedback control system. Make money, Extend monopoly, make more money. Setting economics aside, this kind of system cannot even be maintained mathematically. Unbounded systems are inherently unstable. There has to be negative feedback for the system to maintain itself. In the past, the Sherman Act did a fair job of providing the requisite negative feedback (notice how the Bells are still around, and are still solid businesses, if not as large as before), but Microsoft seems to have been able to castrate that in the latest round, so no there is absolutely nothing to hold them in check. Any system -- physical, financial or otherwise -- has limited energy. I really don't know that our financial system has the energy to sustain an individual trillionnaire. I could be wrong, maybe the number is bigger, but ultimately, there is a finite limit to how much mass a body can accumulate before collapsing in on itself. The larger Microsoft gets, the bigger and more impressive their eventual fall will be, and unfortunately, the more collatoral damage they will inflict in the process. So, Microsoft really is their own worst enemy. In my opinion (I am dead serious about this), the best thing they could do is hire a bunch of controls engineers to take over their business development, who could then come up with a stability model. Unfortunately, as someone else pointed out, Microsoft appears to be much more concerned with short-term growth than with longevity. With their present model, there is no question of if they will crash spectacularly, it is only a question of when.
Re:WHY IS BUSH BASHING INSIGHTFUL?
on
Kevin Free
·
· Score: 2
Labels are the first step in oppressive behavior
And later...
But you're a heartless old republican
I suppose that settles the issue of which side you are on. And, you never answered the parent's question. The Bush administration, in prosecuting a very non-traditional war, has used war-time methods to protect the nation's interests. Did you happen to notice that the American citizen captured among the Al-Qaeda detainees was tried and sentenced in a court of law (and given only 20 years)? In earlier eras of this nation's history, he would have been quickly hung on the same limb they would have used to hang Jane Fonda.
By the way, it is possible to disagree and still be civil and intelligent. My friends list contains at least one liberal democrat with whom I sometimes disagree but always respect. If you have an opinion to express, use an intelligent argument, not name-calling and pot-shots at the President.
I don't know about the rest of the civilized world, but nowhere else is it this easy -- let alone possible
So, you don't know, but you're nevertheless going to go on and tell us that the United States has a monopoly on corruption? Perhaps you ought to browse some world news occasionally. It might be enlightening. Also, for your sentence to make any sense, it should read, "Nowhere else is it possible -- let alone this easy..."
My mom is still running on a 450 Cellery with 96MB. Many people at home don't have the money to upgrade every 3 years.
Ha, I've got you beat. My mother-in-law is running on a 75 MHz first generation pentium Compaq POS with a whopping 24 megs of RAM. About 4 months ago, I got in trouble with my wife for building us a system to replace our old 350 MHz box with 64M RAM and a 4G HD. Forget about having the money to upgrade every three years. When I built the new system, we tried to give the old one to the in-laws (I got frustrated when they bought a new HP printer, and it took like an hour to load the drivers on the old 75), and after one day, they told me to come back and hook up their old box again. It seems they didn't like not having their Compaq address book (some silly 2-bit app that came pre-installed), and couldn't be productive transitioning from MS Works to Word 2000. I tried to tell them that I could export the old address book and they'd have all the features plus many more if they would take the trouble to larn the new apps, but their mindset was that it was hard enough to learn how to use the stupid thing the first time around, and they didn't want to have to do it again. Figure out how to overcome that problem, and you've really got something.
A link to the page you were talking about. According to the EFF, his speech had nothing to do with his arrest, so I guess I was wrong about that. In any case, the point I'm getting at is that the jurisdiction issue has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot, and I really don't think it's relevant anymore. The judge ruled that the U.S. had jurisdiction in the case, and since he did not appear to be a pawn of the prosecution, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's instead discuss what's wrong with the DMCA itself, and let's do something to fix it.
Disclaimer: I'm a little shaky on these facts, so anyone feel free to correct me, but two things: First, I believe he actually had copies of the software in his posession that were for sale when he was arrested, and second, I believe that his lecture at the conference was also considered a violation of the DMCA because he was giving instruction in breaking encryption. I'm not saying any of this makes what happened right, but from everything I've seen, jurisdiction was not a real issue. I think Elcomsoft filed some jurisdiction motion at the beginning just as a legal maneuver and they were promptly denied. This judge seems pretty impartial, so I'd say it was probably justified.
Again, I'm just going from memory here, and I don't have time to go googling around right now because I have to go meet my wife to go Christmas shopping, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
As has been stated many, many, many times before in this forum, they were distributing the software in the U.S., which made them subject to the laws of the United States. And it's not like Dmitry was extradited when this whole thing started; he was arrested on U.S. soil where he was giving a lecture on how to break Adobe's encryption. Right or wrong, it does not constitute enforcing American law in Russia.
Please, everbody, there are plenty of real, honest problems with the DMCA and the way content distributors want it enforced. Let's quit harping on irrelevant issues like this and address intelligent arguments to the real problems with the DMCA.
Hmm, your comment a while back about being pretty led me to believe that you were a female, but I guess you were just being pedantic about me saying "pretty liberal." Anyway, that's why I kind of did a double take when you said that Nichelle Nichols was gorgeous, but then I thought, "well, I guess women can get away with that." Hence the train of thought about why women aren't so homophobic as men. Anyway, yeah, Nichelle Nichols was easy on the eyes, and I too had heard rumors about her being involved with Roddenberry. I have to agree with you that she was well-qualified for the part, regardless of whatever else was going on. In fact, of the original cast, she was one of the few I would say was a good actor without having to take campiness and over-the-top into account. I think Nimoy and Kelley were honestly good actors too, but the rest relied on exaggerated ethnic identities to make themselves likable.
Sean Connery is the coolest of the cool. When I was like 21 I finally found out that I was actually kind of named after him (my dad is into the James Bond movies).
Anyway, glad to be clear on the gender issue now.
P.S. What do you think of Gore pulling out of potential running last night? I'd have to say that even with Gore, if trends continued for the next two years (hardly a foregone conclusion), the Dems would have an uphill battle defeating Bush in '04. Without Gore, I think they've got a lot of work to do. I do have to confess, though, that as far as Democrats go, Lieberman is much more palatable to conservatives than some of the other emerging competitors. I might even commit the unpardonable sin of voting Democrat if Lieberman were running against a Republican I didn't care for (I like Bush, though, so it won't happen this time around). Another thing is that if Lieberman did win in '04, Hillary would not be a viable candidate in '08, which might actually be worth it. Lieberman I could handle, but President Hillary would make me want to go hide in a hole in a rock somewhere. So now, tell me, from the liberal point of view, is it worth it to have Bush win in '04 so you can run Hillary in '08? Or do you even like her?
OT, but something I've always wondered. As a guy, it would be terribly creepy, and totally socially inexcusable for me to say "this guy is really hot/handsome/cute/whatever." The most I can occasionally get away with is, "my wife tells me George Clooney is a masterpiece." Why do women not have the same problem with other women? My wife has no problem telling me or anybody else that Sandra Bullock is cute or that she thinks Jennifer Aniston is pretty. What's up with that? Also, what's the difference between 'cute' and 'pretty?'
No one has mentioned ST II: Wrath of Khan, which was excellent -- as always IMHO.
I guess my reference to the single "masterpiece" to come out of the Trek Universe since TOS wasn't clear enough. I thought that opinion was universal.
As for campy humor and styrofoam boulders, that's exactly what made it so great. They couldn't just throw in some whiz-bang special effects like TNG and call it good. They had to have actual stories and characters to move things along. TOS explored lots of interesting questions like "What if war were to become too clean?" (Armageddon), or "Could you turn down Paradise if offered it?" (I forget the name, but it's the one with spores where Spock is watching clouds) or "Are the alternatives to warfare more desirable?" (Bread and Circuses) or, the very best of the series, "When is war preferable to pacifism?" (The City on the Edge of Forever). The interesting thing is, they didn't always answer the question or offer suitable alternatives -- much of the time they just tossed it out without trying to shove a conclusion down your throat. Of course, they weren't all deep. Some were just fun (like "A piece of the Action" -- the '30s gangster episode), but I would say that with a couple of exceptions (like the hippies on acid episode), they were all enjoyable. Even Shatner's over-the-top acting wasn't all that bad, because nobody could do over-the-top better than him. It's kind of like listening to Neil Diamond -- corny for sure, but catchy enough to make it cool in a Monty Python kind of way.
Didn't Nimoy direct ST IV, too? Honestly, that one was a little embarassing. I'm not saying it was the train wreck that V was, but really, "Save the Whales?" What kind of Sci Fi is that? If I want Save The Whales, I'll watch Animal Planet. On the other hand, at least it was kind of cute and funny when it came out and I was like 10. As for VI, a little silly maybe, but what could be more cool than quoting Shakespeare "in the original Klingon."
Another thing, everybody keeps saying how bad V was, but have we forgotten the pile of slushy sewage called Generations? I dare say it very nearly wrested the Bad Star Trek Movie crown from V. And who could sit through ST:TMP? Really, if we start breaking it down (and I know there are enough TNG fans to put me in the minority with this opinion), with one single, notable exception (I can see you all smiling, because you know the masterpiece I am referring to), Star Trek has not produced anything really great since TOS was cancelled.
I think the idea is that you are probably not going to be using your expensive, experimental neural network to create spam accounts and troll chat rooms for personal info.
Which, by the way, gives me a great idea. I'm going to adapt that annoying psychoanalyst algorithm to create Slashdot accounts and randomly respond to posts in high volume. Not only will it be fun for all ages, but it will actually increase the infamous Signal to Noise ratio for Slashdot!
The CAPTCHA website (how do you pronounce that, anyway) has a list of possible applications of CAPTCHA. The first mention is online polls, and recalls an event in 1999, when Slashdot (they use http://www.slashdot.com for some reason) had a poll for the best graduate CS curriculum. Carnegie-Mellon and MIT wrote competing poll-bots that stuffed the poll boxes. The point was supposed to be that a CAPTCHA would have prevented this. In my opinion, however, this was probably the most accurate Slashdot poll ever. Obviously, MIT wrote the better poll bot, since it stuffed more votes, and they didn't even start until somebody noticed that CMU was stuffing. Hence, the winner of the stuffing contest turned out to be the true winner of the poll.
Apple seems to be dealing with the issue just fine. If you search back a few months I'm sure you'll find an article about some aqua-like project squashed by an Apple CnD letter.
Although effective in this case, a C&D letter is really nothing more than intimidation, and doesn't mean a thing legally. Particularly, see my reply to another poster in which I pose the problem of a little guy wanting to defend his nifty new UI from the big guys. Also, the problem I'm considering would have to be bigger than Aqua (I think). If I understand correctly, Aqua added some translucence to windows and changed up the "taskbar" at the bottom, but is not anything terribly groundbraking beyond that. I'm thinking more in terms of some really neat, innovative UI that turns the whole "desktop" analogy on its side (in case you're wonderin, no, I haven't come up with it -- this is strictly hypothetical). Anything that can be covered just by Trademark wouldn't count here, since a UI that rips off the new scheme doesn't necessarily have to look the same.
I know the situation sounds kind of contrived, but this is exactly what happened with GUIs and the desktop analogy. Xerox had a thinktank that came up with a totally new way of doing things graphically -- a real departure from the old CLI and TUIs. If I remember things correctly, Apple licensed it for the Macintosh, then MS saw how cool the Mac was and blatantly ripped it off for Windows. I believe that Apple tried to sue, and lost in the court, which set a precedent for not being able to patent "look and feel." The OSS community gained a great deal by this decision, since the two big WMs are basically rip-offs of Windows, and MS can't do anything about it. What I'm really wondering (and what none of us probably know) is how this precedent will affect whoever comes up with the next truly innovative UI concept -- something that is more than just the latest incremental improvement to the Desktop concept.
I want to be the judge who tries this case SO badly. I would find for Ralsky in a minute. My opinion would make it clear that obtaining contact information for a person without explicit consent and using that contact information to send a person unsolicited advertisements is, indeed, harassment, and that each instance of such harassment is worth something like $10. Then, I would order him to collect $10 from each offender he has positively identified (What? You haven't been able to identify any? All you know is that 31337 h4X0r 2002 posted an anti-spam message on Slashdot, and you suspect he is one of 300 culprits? Sorry, we can't prosecute somebody for expressing an opinion, but feel free to come back as soon as you have identified whoever signed you up). Even if he finds somebody, you have to cough up $10, which I hope you will all agree is well worth it.
Now, you see where I'm going? The class action counter suit rolls in. Based on the precedent set by the previous case, I find that each instance of using an address obtained without consent to send solicitations is harassment. Then, we subpoena all of his mailing lists. For each address in his mailing lists for which he cannot produce a clear and specific opt-in, we charge him $10. This guy probably has tens of millions of addresses, so he gets fined hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, granted, the fines are supposed to go to the injured parties, so we collect money from Ralsky until he's bankrupt for life and set it up in an escrow account until parties appear to claim it. Any money not claimed within like 12 months goes to some worthy cause.
Now I just have to get to be a judge in Michigan in the next couple of weeks. I guess I'd better step up the campaign!
I see a lot of people suggesting that it's likely that most of these cheap computers end up getting wiped clean and having Windows installed.
Another thing that comes to mind is that many, many average Joe User types could not manage to install Windows on these things if they wanted to. Windows is not that easy to install, especially with all the activation stuff that they're requiring for XP. I think that the Joe Users who are buying these things are taking them home and using them for e-mail and web surfing without even realizing that they are not using Windows.
Actually, based on the lawyers I have known, I would say that it is more like the 1% who give the other 99% a bad name -- a visible and despicable minority. Most lawyers do not spend their days writing C&D letters to anyone who ever said "Mickey Mouse" or making television commercials with lines like, "Have you ever driven an automobile? Chances are, somebody owes YOU money!" The problem is, the lawyer who helped Granny draw up a will that would divide her few assets fairly and the lawyer who procured a patent so that somebody with a great idea could start a small business don't get any publicity, because the useful things lawyers do are not sensational.
True, but they also do this for their own financial benefit. More apps written for Windows means greater market dominance for Windows, and if the apps have a consistent interface, all the better. And, like you implied, the UI was just a rip-off of Apple's (a rip-off of Xerox's) to begin with. Maybe I should turn the question around. Say I'm some average Joe Coder sitting at my computer, and all of the sudden, I have this huge epiphany, and I get this vision for the perfect UI. I sit down and hack out the code, iron out some bugs, and have close friends and family members give it a test drive, and they're all just totally blown away at how it totally unleashes all of the power of the computer. However, I realize that althought the design of the UI was my own little piece of brilliance, once it gets out in the open, it will be trivial for Big Bad Corporation X to release their own implementation, crushing whatever little startup I form to sell the product. So, what incentive do I have to release the UI? If "look and feel" indeed cannot be patented, what else can I do to protect myself?
On the other hand, the general trend of open source is to follow the leader in the most positive way possible. If someone builds the perfect UI, open source folks will copy it sooner or later.
I know a lot has been made on Slashdot about not patenting "look and feel," but this does bring up an interesting question: If the "perfect UI" were possible, would a company invest the resources needed to realize it without the possibility of protecting it? Granted, some of the cost would go towards actual implementation, which would be protected by copyright, but the investment in designing this perfect UI would probably be greater by at least an order of magnitude. This question is really interesting to me because I am wanting to get into patent law. Anybody want to comment on what recourse a company would have for protecting the perfect UI? Legal precedent would not appear to be on your side.
Slashdot Mirror
The mass does not have to be physical mass. In this case, it is financial mass. The laws of an unbounded system still apply. Are money and economics made up? Perhaps, but enough people believe in them that they are viable entities. Made up or not, in the world of economics, Microsoft is an extrememly massive body, and the positive feedback loop continues to add to that financial mass. This cannot be sustained indefinitely. It may not collapse this year or next year or even next decade, but it will collapse eventually. Just as there is a finite amount of physical mass in the universe, there is a finite amount of money, even in our "made-up" system. You can only make up so much before the whole system breaks down. Something has to give eventually.
By the way, it is possible to disagree and still be civil and intelligent. My friends list contains at least one liberal democrat with whom I sometimes disagree but always respect. If you have an opinion to express, use an intelligent argument, not name-calling and pot-shots at the President.
And it's rad-hardened to boot!
Dang monopolists with your proprietary hamburgers...
A link to the page you were talking about. According to the EFF, his speech had nothing to do with his arrest, so I guess I was wrong about that. In any case, the point I'm getting at is that the jurisdiction issue has been discussed ad nauseum on Slashdot, and I really don't think it's relevant anymore. The judge ruled that the U.S. had jurisdiction in the case, and since he did not appear to be a pawn of the prosecution, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's instead discuss what's wrong with the DMCA itself, and let's do something to fix it.
Again, I'm just going from memory here, and I don't have time to go googling around right now because I have to go meet my wife to go Christmas shopping, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Please, everbody, there are plenty of real, honest problems with the DMCA and the way content distributors want it enforced. Let's quit harping on irrelevant issues like this and address intelligent arguments to the real problems with the DMCA.
Sean Connery is the coolest of the cool. When I was like 21 I finally found out that I was actually kind of named after him (my dad is into the James Bond movies). Anyway, glad to be clear on the gender issue now.
P.S. What do you think of Gore pulling out of potential running last night? I'd have to say that even with Gore, if trends continued for the next two years (hardly a foregone conclusion), the Dems would have an uphill battle defeating Bush in '04. Without Gore, I think they've got a lot of work to do. I do have to confess, though, that as far as Democrats go, Lieberman is much more palatable to conservatives than some of the other emerging competitors. I might even commit the unpardonable sin of voting Democrat if Lieberman were running against a Republican I didn't care for (I like Bush, though, so it won't happen this time around). Another thing is that if Lieberman did win in '04, Hillary would not be a viable candidate in '08, which might actually be worth it. Lieberman I could handle, but President Hillary would make me want to go hide in a hole in a rock somewhere. So now, tell me, from the liberal point of view, is it worth it to have Bush win in '04 so you can run Hillary in '08? Or do you even like her?
As for campy humor and styrofoam boulders, that's exactly what made it so great. They couldn't just throw in some whiz-bang special effects like TNG and call it good. They had to have actual stories and characters to move things along. TOS explored lots of interesting questions like "What if war were to become too clean?" (Armageddon), or "Could you turn down Paradise if offered it?" (I forget the name, but it's the one with spores where Spock is watching clouds) or "Are the alternatives to warfare more desirable?" (Bread and Circuses) or, the very best of the series, "When is war preferable to pacifism?" (The City on the Edge of Forever). The interesting thing is, they didn't always answer the question or offer suitable alternatives -- much of the time they just tossed it out without trying to shove a conclusion down your throat. Of course, they weren't all deep. Some were just fun (like "A piece of the Action" -- the '30s gangster episode), but I would say that with a couple of exceptions (like the hippies on acid episode), they were all enjoyable. Even Shatner's over-the-top acting wasn't all that bad, because nobody could do over-the-top better than him. It's kind of like listening to Neil Diamond -- corny for sure, but catchy enough to make it cool in a Monty Python kind of way.
Another thing, everybody keeps saying how bad V was, but have we forgotten the pile of slushy sewage called Generations? I dare say it very nearly wrested the Bad Star Trek Movie crown from V. And who could sit through ST:TMP? Really, if we start breaking it down (and I know there are enough TNG fans to put me in the minority with this opinion), with one single, notable exception (I can see you all smiling, because you know the masterpiece I am referring to), Star Trek has not produced anything really great since TOS was cancelled.
Which, by the way, gives me a great idea. I'm going to adapt that annoying psychoanalyst algorithm to create Slashdot accounts and randomly respond to posts in high volume. Not only will it be fun for all ages, but it will actually increase the infamous Signal to Noise ratio for Slashdot!
The CAPTCHA website (how do you pronounce that, anyway) has a list of possible applications of CAPTCHA. The first mention is online polls, and recalls an event in 1999, when Slashdot (they use http://www.slashdot.com for some reason) had a poll for the best graduate CS curriculum. Carnegie-Mellon and MIT wrote competing poll-bots that stuffed the poll boxes. The point was supposed to be that a CAPTCHA would have prevented this. In my opinion, however, this was probably the most accurate Slashdot poll ever. Obviously, MIT wrote the better poll bot, since it stuffed more votes, and they didn't even start until somebody noticed that CMU was stuffing. Hence, the winner of the stuffing contest turned out to be the true winner of the poll.
I know the situation sounds kind of contrived, but this is exactly what happened with GUIs and the desktop analogy. Xerox had a thinktank that came up with a totally new way of doing things graphically -- a real departure from the old CLI and TUIs. If I remember things correctly, Apple licensed it for the Macintosh, then MS saw how cool the Mac was and blatantly ripped it off for Windows. I believe that Apple tried to sue, and lost in the court, which set a precedent for not being able to patent "look and feel." The OSS community gained a great deal by this decision, since the two big WMs are basically rip-offs of Windows, and MS can't do anything about it. What I'm really wondering (and what none of us probably know) is how this precedent will affect whoever comes up with the next truly innovative UI concept -- something that is more than just the latest incremental improvement to the Desktop concept.
Now, you see where I'm going? The class action counter suit rolls in. Based on the precedent set by the previous case, I find that each instance of using an address obtained without consent to send solicitations is harassment. Then, we subpoena all of his mailing lists. For each address in his mailing lists for which he cannot produce a clear and specific opt-in, we charge him $10. This guy probably has tens of millions of addresses, so he gets fined hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, granted, the fines are supposed to go to the injured parties, so we collect money from Ralsky until he's bankrupt for life and set it up in an escrow account until parties appear to claim it. Any money not claimed within like 12 months goes to some worthy cause.
Now I just have to get to be a judge in Michigan in the next couple of weeks. I guess I'd better step up the campaign!
Well, he's dead on top of that, so, yeah, I guess it does.
Actually, based on the lawyers I have known, I would say that it is more like the 1% who give the other 99% a bad name -- a visible and despicable minority. Most lawyers do not spend their days writing C&D letters to anyone who ever said "Mickey Mouse" or making television commercials with lines like, "Have you ever driven an automobile? Chances are, somebody owes YOU money!" The problem is, the lawyer who helped Granny draw up a will that would divide her few assets fairly and the lawyer who procured a patent so that somebody with a great idea could start a small business don't get any publicity, because the useful things lawyers do are not sensational.
True, but they also do this for their own financial benefit. More apps written for Windows means greater market dominance for Windows, and if the apps have a consistent interface, all the better. And, like you implied, the UI was just a rip-off of Apple's (a rip-off of Xerox's) to begin with. Maybe I should turn the question around. Say I'm some average Joe Coder sitting at my computer, and all of the sudden, I have this huge epiphany, and I get this vision for the perfect UI. I sit down and hack out the code, iron out some bugs, and have close friends and family members give it a test drive, and they're all just totally blown away at how it totally unleashes all of the power of the computer. However, I realize that althought the design of the UI was my own little piece of brilliance, once it gets out in the open, it will be trivial for Big Bad Corporation X to release their own implementation, crushing whatever little startup I form to sell the product. So, what incentive do I have to release the UI? If "look and feel" indeed cannot be patented, what else can I do to protect myself?