it will become a hamstrung corporate slushy, just like Microsoft did.
All the DOJ did was say "yep MS, you are a monopoly", the damage was already done. Microsoft managed to squash Netscape, BeOS, and all of their established competitors from the '90s.
Other than making MS more subtle in their EEE tactics, the ruling didn't do too much. Microsoft managed to come out on top with the DOJ hearings, yeah they got a stern talking to and some bad PR, but look at post-hearing MS, it was doing remarkably well and not losing marketshare till the disaster of Vista.
Apple has a lot more to fear than MS did. Apple doesn't supply the OS for most of the government's computers, MS does.
Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.
If I'm unhappy at Apple for some reason I have to stick with them because the other companies won't hire me, not because I'm not qualified but because of my previous employer.
If this was Burger King don't hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?
You mean that you expect this to actually be used?
IE doesn't even have support for canvas, Firefox has had it from 3.0 at least, and I think even 2.0 had some support.
If IE still has more than 30% worldwide marketshare, and doesn't have basic requirements for this, its not going to be used. Period.
Canvas has been around for ages and is there even a single practical example on a site people use daily? Yeah, there are about a million tech demos but very little actual use because IE doesn't support it.
No, because Apple is the problem. If Wal-Mart didn't let the router company include a source CD with the router, you'd go after Wal-Mart along with the router company. The developers of this app I have little doubt want to comply with the GPL but Apple won't let them, a bit like Wal-Mart prohibiting the inclusion of source code.
We'd end up with a bunch of educated idiots unable to provide from themselves?
Welfare is decent for providing for people who truly cannot provide from themselves, but even at its current form, its prone to lots of abuses. Just ask anyone who has worked at a supermarket, you have quite a few people coming through, buying booze with cash and paying for groceries with food stamps while wearing designer clothing.
Public education ends up being detrimental to the poor also. Because education has become a "right" we have more and more people not trying or in education when they shouldn't pass, but due to our thinking in the US, still manage to. Because of this, a high school degree is more or less worthless. Putting that you have a high school diploma isn't going to attract any attention, considering you can simply ask most teachers for a passing grade and they will give it to you... all it has become is that you've sat through 13 years of classes. It is no longer a qualification.
Because of this, most people need post-high school education which can never be truly free. Yeah, you can get an online degree or a degree at a community college, but that is fast becoming like high school diplomas: a given. And most state or private universities are located where the cost of living is relatively high. Even if you get all of your tuition paid for, you still have the costs of living. Because of this, the paycheck-to-paycheck poor are discouraged from attending university unless they manage to get a full ride which is becoming harder and harder to get unless you are super-good at a sport and good at math/science/english and reading because the SAT/ACT is reported as a composite score, and because the tests are expensive, its more likely that someone better off financially can do better by taking it multiple times.
Spending more money in public education won't help the poor, it will only force them to pay for more education and end up increasing various deficits of the government because fewer people are working.
In short, spending money for welfare and public education are two of the worst things we can put our tax money at work for. We need to reduce government and taxes, not increase it.
The way I see it, net neutrality needs to be mandated for ISPs using state or federal funds to "modernize" America, if they use substantial portions of public lands they also need to use net neutrality. If they use no public funds or public land, let them do what they will. But since most ISPs use public land or funds, we, the taxpayers have a say in their operations.
This isn't about "regulations" its about getting what you paid for: to "modernize" America with faster internet access, not access to a handful of sites, no non-traditional ways of getting content, etc.
From what I've read about PLATO (I was born quite a bit after PLATO's heyday) it seemed to be in stark contrast with today's methods of teaching computers. It seemed like PLATO actually encouraged students to explore computers. Today though, teachers are too paranoid, thinking that the command prompt will "break" the computer and other stupidities.
And we wonder why America experienced a tech boom in the 70s-90s and its drying up. Between the changes in education, legislation designed to make it be even harder to produce technology in the US along with R&D and government-funded monopolies, I don't think we're going to be number one in technology again.
Ok, how many people do you know that have Android phones? Heck, most of the people I talk to don't even have smartphones, of those that do only one or two have an Android phone the rest have Windows Mobile or Blackberries.
While interesting, these apps aren't that useful because the other caller would have to be using the same software for it to work which limits it to just a few people using Android with these apps.
Because it is impossible to pirate books to a Kindle?
See, the nice thing about the Kindle is that its easier to purchase legitimate books than it is to pirate them. That is a good thing, yeah there is still DRM and the like, but in all honesty, devices that make it easier to purchase and use purchased content then pirated is a step in the right direction because it means that they have finally realized that the customer is not their enemy.
The problem is that LCD screens are a pain to read for extended periods of time on.
I've read books on my laptop before and I can say with absolute certainty I'd rather read a book on my B&N nook than on an LCD any day. Yeah, LCDs aren't bad for graphics heavy things, but reading walls of text can certainly cause eyestrain.
I have used Fedora on a number of occasions, however is Fedora now as fast as Ubuntu for doing most tasks? Every single time I've used Fedora YUM makes installing packages a pain because they take too long and sometimes even run into dependency hell (did the first time I tried updating on Fedora 12). Yes, I know they have apt in the repositories, but seriously? Compare Ubuntu to Fedora in default speed, unless 13 changes it, Ubuntu wins.
Ok, define "indecency". So why can I not say Shit which is Anglo-Saxon which means the same thing as excrement does in Latin. Or if I say crap which comes from French?
Why is it that words meaning the same thing but have different linguistic ties be considered more or less offensive?
And lastly, "indecency" should be perfectly allowed. Remember, take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say "fuck the government".
Freedoms, such as the right of free speech, should never be put to a vote or otherwise abridged.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. You have no right to say what people can and can't say.
If it doesn't harm anyone, it should be perfectly legal. The government is only here to protect us against fraud and force, things that actually harm people, not a "swear" word. Oh how terrible is it that I hear an Anglo-Saxon word meaning feces when the latin word meaning the same thing feces is said without anybody really caring.
The government exists to protect us from harm, please tell me how swear words "harm" us in any way.
its desire to shock and offend is crystal clear in this decision
Heaven forbid we have things that "shock and offend". Martin Luther King Jr shocked and offended many people when he spoke out for civil rights, Rosa Park shocked and offended many people when she didn't give up her seat, Patrick Henry shocked and offended many people when he shouted "give me liberty or give me death" and yet we still call those people "heroes"
The fact is, shocking and offending people should be a right because without it, our nation would not exist.
You have no right to not be offended, the right to offend, however, is paramount.
Re:OSI is getting exactly what they pushed
on
Why We Still Need OSI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The thing is, as much as I'd really like to dismiss RMS and the rest of the FSF as a bunch of loons who don't understand how software works, I can't because they've been spot on for a lot of things. And really it seems like http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/infrastructures.png we say that their policies are unreasonable, that their predictions are outlandish but then they come true.
Look back at "Can you trust your computer?" written by RMS in I believe 2002
The technical idea underlying treacherous [trusted] computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.
Does that not sound like it hasn't already happened? In 2002, yeah, it sounded stupid, sounded outlandish. But look at the iPhone, restrictions on even Android devices like the BackFlip, DRM in the form of "unlimited music", etc.
And this isn't an isolated incident, look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html and see when they were written, a lot of them, if not all of them, came true. Perhaps not in the way that it was written, but the underlying forces did it in a different way.
I'd really, really like to say that the FSF has unworkable policies, and many times they do, but I can't help but looking at their past work and seeing how they were right on track.
There are a lot of fully open devices. Or at least a ton more open than other electronics because you can run whatever apps you feel like on there, change the OS, and do both without jailbreaking or otherwise having to resort to other methods.
There is the GP2x which is similar to a PSP, now the Pandora, the Nexus One, Google Dev phone, etc.
OSI is getting exactly what they pushed
on
Why We Still Need OSI
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
OSI is getting exactly what they pushed: open code tied to closed devices. When you fight for open as a key to business success rather than user freedom, we get Android and their closed phones, we get devices running Linux that are essentially black boxes because you can't get them to run anything else, etc.
What OSI has pushed forward has taken hold. However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
Like RMS said, even if your code is open, they can choose just not to redistribute it and it would end up "closed", especially if they tangle it with NDAs and "national security".
Just about everything dealing with space gets lumped in with "national security" and thus may never be viewable by the public.
How is the code used though? Do you still own the code? Is it licensed under the GPL? BSD? Apache? Or is it just given to the companies or placed in the public domain?
Slashdot Mirror
it will become a hamstrung corporate slushy, just like Microsoft did.
All the DOJ did was say "yep MS, you are a monopoly", the damage was already done. Microsoft managed to squash Netscape, BeOS, and all of their established competitors from the '90s.
Other than making MS more subtle in their EEE tactics, the ruling didn't do too much. Microsoft managed to come out on top with the DOJ hearings, yeah they got a stern talking to and some bad PR, but look at post-hearing MS, it was doing remarkably well and not losing marketshare till the disaster of Vista.
Apple has a lot more to fear than MS did. Apple doesn't supply the OS for most of the government's computers, MS does.
Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.
If I'm unhappy at Apple for some reason I have to stick with them because the other companies won't hire me, not because I'm not qualified but because of my previous employer.
If this was Burger King don't hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?
Um, how is Amazon breaking the law? They are running a competing DRM free music store that doesn't have artificially inflated prices like iTunes.
You mean that you expect this to actually be used?
IE doesn't even have support for canvas, Firefox has had it from 3.0 at least, and I think even 2.0 had some support.
If IE still has more than 30% worldwide marketshare, and doesn't have basic requirements for this, its not going to be used. Period.
Canvas has been around for ages and is there even a single practical example on a site people use daily? Yeah, there are about a million tech demos but very little actual use because IE doesn't support it.
All these breakthroughs in Canvas and Javascript are useful, but will they be used?
Until IE implements even half these features, we will be stuck with "Quick"Time and Flash for quite some time...
Such as?
No, because Apple is the problem. If Wal-Mart didn't let the router company include a source CD with the router, you'd go after Wal-Mart along with the router company. The developers of this app I have little doubt want to comply with the GPL but Apple won't let them, a bit like Wal-Mart prohibiting the inclusion of source code.
We'd end up with a bunch of educated idiots unable to provide from themselves?
Welfare is decent for providing for people who truly cannot provide from themselves, but even at its current form, its prone to lots of abuses. Just ask anyone who has worked at a supermarket, you have quite a few people coming through, buying booze with cash and paying for groceries with food stamps while wearing designer clothing.
Public education ends up being detrimental to the poor also. Because education has become a "right" we have more and more people not trying or in education when they shouldn't pass, but due to our thinking in the US, still manage to. Because of this, a high school degree is more or less worthless. Putting that you have a high school diploma isn't going to attract any attention, considering you can simply ask most teachers for a passing grade and they will give it to you... all it has become is that you've sat through 13 years of classes. It is no longer a qualification.
Because of this, most people need post-high school education which can never be truly free. Yeah, you can get an online degree or a degree at a community college, but that is fast becoming like high school diplomas: a given. And most state or private universities are located where the cost of living is relatively high. Even if you get all of your tuition paid for, you still have the costs of living. Because of this, the paycheck-to-paycheck poor are discouraged from attending university unless they manage to get a full ride which is becoming harder and harder to get unless you are super-good at a sport and good at math/science/english and reading because the SAT/ACT is reported as a composite score, and because the tests are expensive, its more likely that someone better off financially can do better by taking it multiple times.
Spending more money in public education won't help the poor, it will only force them to pay for more education and end up increasing various deficits of the government because fewer people are working.
In short, spending money for welfare and public education are two of the worst things we can put our tax money at work for. We need to reduce government and taxes, not increase it.
The way I see it, net neutrality needs to be mandated for ISPs using state or federal funds to "modernize" America, if they use substantial portions of public lands they also need to use net neutrality. If they use no public funds or public land, let them do what they will. But since most ISPs use public land or funds, we, the taxpayers have a say in their operations.
This isn't about "regulations" its about getting what you paid for: to "modernize" America with faster internet access, not access to a handful of sites, no non-traditional ways of getting content, etc.
But Google will keep notes on everything you say and Wikipedia will correct you for using words that are "not notable"
From what I've read about PLATO (I was born quite a bit after PLATO's heyday) it seemed to be in stark contrast with today's methods of teaching computers. It seemed like PLATO actually encouraged students to explore computers. Today though, teachers are too paranoid, thinking that the command prompt will "break" the computer and other stupidities.
And we wonder why America experienced a tech boom in the 70s-90s and its drying up. Between the changes in education, legislation designed to make it be even harder to produce technology in the US along with R&D and government-funded monopolies, I don't think we're going to be number one in technology again.
Ok, how many people do you know that have Android phones? Heck, most of the people I talk to don't even have smartphones, of those that do only one or two have an Android phone the rest have Windows Mobile or Blackberries.
While interesting, these apps aren't that useful because the other caller would have to be using the same software for it to work which limits it to just a few people using Android with these apps.
Because it is impossible to pirate books to a Kindle?
See, the nice thing about the Kindle is that its easier to purchase legitimate books than it is to pirate them. That is a good thing, yeah there is still DRM and the like, but in all honesty, devices that make it easier to purchase and use purchased content then pirated is a step in the right direction because it means that they have finally realized that the customer is not their enemy.
The problem is that LCD screens are a pain to read for extended periods of time on.
I've read books on my laptop before and I can say with absolute certainty I'd rather read a book on my B&N nook than on an LCD any day. Yeah, LCDs aren't bad for graphics heavy things, but reading walls of text can certainly cause eyestrain.
No, I don't agree with the supreme court (and really, unelected judges as a whole) on a lot of issues.
And no, it doesn't make sense. So long as it isn't harming others (like yelling fire in a crowded theater, or libel) it should be allowed.
I fail to see how any swear word I can think of can be harming others.
Unless there is someone who dies if they see: ass bitch fuck shit cunt arse shite bloody damn hell or any other "swear" word.
I have used Fedora on a number of occasions, however is Fedora now as fast as Ubuntu for doing most tasks? Every single time I've used Fedora YUM makes installing packages a pain because they take too long and sometimes even run into dependency hell (did the first time I tried updating on Fedora 12). Yes, I know they have apt in the repositories, but seriously? Compare Ubuntu to Fedora in default speed, unless 13 changes it, Ubuntu wins.
Ok, define "indecency". So why can I not say Shit which is Anglo-Saxon which means the same thing as excrement does in Latin. Or if I say crap which comes from French?
Why is it that words meaning the same thing but have different linguistic ties be considered more or less offensive?
And lastly, "indecency" should be perfectly allowed. Remember, take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say "fuck the government".
Freedoms, such as the right of free speech, should never be put to a vote or otherwise abridged.
If you don't like it, don't watch it. You have no right to say what people can and can't say.
If it doesn't harm anyone, it should be perfectly legal. The government is only here to protect us against fraud and force, things that actually harm people, not a "swear" word. Oh how terrible is it that I hear an Anglo-Saxon word meaning feces when the latin word meaning the same thing feces is said without anybody really caring.
The government exists to protect us from harm, please tell me how swear words "harm" us in any way.
its desire to shock and offend is crystal clear in this decision
Heaven forbid we have things that "shock and offend". Martin Luther King Jr shocked and offended many people when he spoke out for civil rights, Rosa Park shocked and offended many people when she didn't give up her seat, Patrick Henry shocked and offended many people when he shouted "give me liberty or give me death" and yet we still call those people "heroes"
The fact is, shocking and offending people should be a right because without it, our nation would not exist.
You have no right to not be offended, the right to offend, however, is paramount.
Look back at "Can you trust your computer?" written by RMS in I believe 2002
The technical idea underlying treacherous [trusted] computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.
Does that not sound like it hasn't already happened? In 2002, yeah, it sounded stupid, sounded outlandish. But look at the iPhone, restrictions on even Android devices like the BackFlip, DRM in the form of "unlimited music", etc.
And this isn't an isolated incident, look at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/essays-and-articles.html and see when they were written, a lot of them, if not all of them, came true. Perhaps not in the way that it was written, but the underlying forces did it in a different way.
I'd really, really like to say that the FSF has unworkable policies, and many times they do, but I can't help but looking at their past work and seeing how they were right on track.
There are a lot of fully open devices. Or at least a ton more open than other electronics because you can run whatever apps you feel like on there, change the OS, and do both without jailbreaking or otherwise having to resort to other methods.
There is the GP2x which is similar to a PSP, now the Pandora, the Nexus One, Google Dev phone, etc.
OSI is getting exactly what they pushed: open code tied to closed devices. When you fight for open as a key to business success rather than user freedom, we get Android and their closed phones, we get devices running Linux that are essentially black boxes because you can't get them to run anything else, etc.
What OSI has pushed forward has taken hold. However, I think we can all agree now that GPL V3 was a good idea because it would prevent our current situation of half-open devices.
Like RMS said, even if your code is open, they can choose just not to redistribute it and it would end up "closed", especially if they tangle it with NDAs and "national security".
Just about everything dealing with space gets lumped in with "national security" and thus may never be viewable by the public.
How is the code used though? Do you still own the code? Is it licensed under the GPL? BSD? Apache? Or is it just given to the companies or placed in the public domain?