At least not to the worse. Stallman said multiple times that he wants the living standards of software developers to drop dramatically. It is truly bizarre that so many of the so-called geeks support him.
The technical details you provide are completely irrelevant to the question what price of an SMS reflects the cost of providing this service. I bet, the calculation is extremely complicated considering the number of different types of costs involved. This should give you a basic idea of how costs can be calculated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzplankostenrechnung#GPK_marginal_costing_diagram
Well, there is at least evidence to that patents benefit innovation. Now what is your evidence to the contrary? As the parent said, "Proof: the way IT progressed before software patents."—I am not sure what he meant with that. The innovativeness of IT in the last decades was nothing short of amazing. This is despite (or thanks to) patents.
Because it is not profitable/noone has incentive to do this/there is no demand. So no, they will not fab this, and noone will come. If open-source hardware made any sense, it would already be here. There would be no need for manifestos, logo contests, or "pushing." Why would a chinese company would want to do this and enjoy no competitive advantage and the corresponding 0.01% profits? A government? Right, those are well-known for innovativeness and efficiency.
There is also this vile, hateful, racist concept of "freedom of association." There used to be a time when one could choose with whom to work. Thanfully, noone protects this freedom now.
Maybe the Moon landing of your generation is called "The Internet." Or "Personal Genomics." I don't think that Space exploration is the only measure of human achievement.
Animals (and nature in general) are only as valuable as they are useful to humans. For most, animals are useful as source of food, for many as pets, and for some (such as you) as a reason to feel morally superior to other people.
Then obviously a mission to Mars is a bad idea. A good thing about commercial enterprises is that they have an unambiguous, impartial, consistent standard of value—profit.
Fortunately, at my university most everyone uses MS Office either with Windows or a Macintosh. Although occasionally a student you work together on a project opens a Powerpoint file that you so carefully crafted and screws the layout up with that abomination that OOO is. Computer science has nothing to do with dicking around with file formats or office software.
Firefox 4 launches in 1-2 seconds even on my 1.5 year-old Intel X25M G2 SSD (under Windows 7). Solid state drives are increasingly mainstream, so for those who value speed, Firefox should be fast enough.
If we choose to do what we can to try and keep it from getting worse, and in the end all the climate scientists were wrong, what are the consequences? We spent more money than we had to?
Let's destroy the world economy and the Western civilization just in case!
Slashdot Mirror
At least not to the worse. Stallman said multiple times that he wants the living standards of software developers to drop dramatically. It is truly bizarre that so many of the so-called geeks support him.
The technical details you provide are completely irrelevant to the question what price of an SMS reflects the cost of providing this service. I bet, the calculation is extremely complicated considering the number of different types of costs involved. This should give you a basic idea of how costs can be calculated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzplankostenrechnung#GPK_marginal_costing_diagram
Unfortunately, if your primary business is not IT, it is also the easiest one to cut.
Fortunately, if your primary business is not IT, it is also the easiest one to cut.
FTFY
exploiting fear in liberals
In liberals you exploit guilt.
Well, there is at least evidence to that patents benefit innovation. Now what is your evidence to the contrary? As the parent said, "Proof: the way IT progressed before software patents."—I am not sure what he meant with that. The innovativeness of IT in the last decades was nothing short of amazing. This is despite (or thanks to) patents.
Proof to the contrary: no software patents in the EU. So where are the European Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Oracle, Apple, Google, Facebook?
Can you name two comparable countries, one with software patents and one without where the second is more innovative in the IT than the first?
Isn't there an insurance for the kind of problems you are talking about?
Is there any reason why phones cannot be dual/trible boot?
Lack of demand.
Because it is not profitable/noone has incentive to do this/there is no demand. So no, they will not fab this, and noone will come. If open-source hardware made any sense, it would already be here. There would be no need for manifestos, logo contests, or "pushing." Why would a chinese company would want to do this and enjoy no competitive advantage and the corresponding 0.01% profits? A government? Right, those are well-known for innovativeness and efficiency.
A bigger economic failure is using the word "fair" in economic arguments.
In what world is "poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than rich people" even remotely fair?
Poor people also get more from the government (as a percentage of their income). Looks fair to me.
Consideing that Windows is the only mainstream OS which is not Unix-like, it is rather Microsoft who contributes to world operating system diversity.
There is also this vile, hateful, racist concept of "freedom of association." There used to be a time when one could choose with whom to work. Thanfully, noone protects this freedom now.
All UAC does is basically confirm with whomever is currently sitting at the computer (authorized or not) that they initiated some arbitrary action.
Unless you are a limited-rights user. Then you have to enter admin credentials.
Here: http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/01/guys-create-wikipedia-for-free-thats.html
Maybe the Moon landing of your generation is called "The Internet." Or "Personal Genomics." I don't think that Space exploration is the only measure of human achievement.
We better do something about the problem
Let's nuke Africa! It's just not cool enough.
and sold to developed countries
It is sold to the highest bidder. This is how markets work and it hardly has anything to do with greed.
Animals (and nature in general) are only as valuable as they are useful to humans. For most, animals are useful as source of food, for many as pets, and for some (such as you) as a reason to feel morally superior to other people.
Then obviously a mission to Mars is a bad idea. A good thing about commercial enterprises is that they have an unambiguous, impartial, consistent standard of value—profit.
Of all places, you chose Slashdot to criticize the idea of freedom, in this case economic.
Fortunately, at my university most everyone uses MS Office either with Windows or a Macintosh. Although occasionally a student you work together on a project opens a Powerpoint file that you so carefully crafted and screws the layout up with that abomination that OOO is. Computer science has nothing to do with dicking around with file formats or office software.
Do you mean that the only way you can achieve your goals of universal OSS adoption is through government force? Doesn's sound free to me.
Firefox 4 launches in 1-2 seconds even on my 1.5 year-old Intel X25M G2 SSD (under Windows 7). Solid state drives are increasingly mainstream, so for those who value speed, Firefox should be fast enough.
If we choose to do what we can to try and keep it from getting worse, and in the end all the climate scientists were wrong, what are the consequences? We spent more money than we had to?
Let's destroy the world economy and the Western civilization just in case!