I've read blurbs here and there about governments outside the US requiring open source for all their stuff. I can't remember which, or what, but apparently, a lot of people feel this way, all over the world.
Unfortunately, graft is the American way. I'm sure the government is one of Microsoft's biggest customers, if not the absolute biggest, and Microsoft can certainly afford to buy clout in Washinton.
It's really unfortunate, because all that money being spent on Word, vs. saved by something like Staroffice, could pay a lot more teachers, build highways, etc.
Also, the bickering over who gets to be the supplier wastes time, and prevents vital things from being done. I can think of one case where a system for putting altitude transponders in aircraft was stalled for over 10 years, so certain politicians' "patrons" could come up with their own, and get the contract. In the meantime, scores of lives were lost in mid air collisions that could have easily been avoided.
If they really want to do something, kill the old-tech serial ports and give us USB and Firewire instead. Of course, this isn't great for Linux, but it sounds phenomenal for anything else.
If Compaq hadn't reverse engineered the PC, we'd all still be using $4000 IBMs, which might not be faster than a 386.
The ability and right to reverse engineer is absolutely necessary. Without it, the economy would *really* be dominated by stone-age monopolies, and there would be no innovation.
Proprietary locks are nothing but economic logjams. They prevent people with even better ideas from taking things to the next level, and continuing to create and add value.
Open source changes things in a way that reminds me of an old cliche: it's not what you have, but what you can do with it that counts. In an open source utopia, the marketplace would reward companies that can actually add value, rather than those that simply buy and hoard intellectual property. This would create an atmosphere of extreme competition where the only the smartest could prevail, a perfect meritocracy. As a result, we'd see much better software; but the real benefit would be the enhanced productivity in any industry that depends on that software. The entire economy would benefit, and that's really what counts.
If there's a downside to all this, it's that Joe Coder might not make the grade. Without extraordinary talent, there's little chance he'll be able to continue to improve upon what other talented programmers have done before. Without the protection of an IP-hoarding employer, his salary will wither because he's not really adding any value.
How do I feel about this? Burn, baby, burn.
If you want to look at it another way, consider IP to be an economic resource like land or capital. That resource is not doing us any good if it's being hoarded, rather than immediately put to every possible good use. An empty lot in the middle of a busy city is a waste. It might generate a relatively small amount of wealth for its owner as its value apprciates, but that's chickenfeed compared to what it could be contributing to the economy as a shopping mall or office park. In fact, this is one argument for property tax. It prevents people from simply hoarding land, and encourages putting that land to good use (to pay the tax).
This is exactly what happens with IP, too. If someone is hoarding the source code, someone else with a better idea is prevented from putting it to good use. And that hurts everyone.
Stallman could take a few lessons from Torvalds, especially in learning that one gets more bees with honey than with vinegar. Ultimately, that's why Linux is Linux, and not GNU. Stallman may be blessed with some exceptional abilities, but he's still an immature jackass.
Read through the Ars Digita University stuff on Greenspun's site again. You'll see that this is the whole idea: to give the people with "a clue" a crash course in CS, so they'll be able to put their ideas to work.
KPFK is a unique and wonderful station, supported by listeners only. It takes no money from corporations or government agencies. The upside of this is that it doesn't have to worry about biting the hand that feeds it, which can result in some very fine journalism. The downside is that there is no money to pay people to do all this stuff. So, if you'd like to see the show transcripts on the net, why don't you volunteer to do it?
The colors may look "washed out" on the pro's image, but this is typical with a scanned image. It can be corrected easily with Photoshop, etc. Keep in mind that a computer screen has a greater luminance range than paper; so an image that was shot and developed for printing is not going to reproduce optimally on screen without some work.
I believe the Coolpix does allow aperture adjustment-- that's one of the things that sets it apart from the average P&S digicam. It's targeted at slightly more serious photographers who want a little more control. And yes, the lens is small, but this is more often an advantage than a disadvantage. One is more likely to be limited by *not enough* depth of field, especially in low light, rather than the opposite. Try shooting a medium format rig in a dimly lit nightclub. This is one reason why 35mm replaced larger formats in the first place.
I find your "jockstrap" comment amusing. You know what they say about a big camera as a substitute for something else...
I'm with you. That's the first thing that came to mind when I read this article. I want to hear what the man himself has to say, not the hack attitude-monger that wrote this article. How about a link to the source?
I think the fuss over unsolicited email stems from pent-up frustration over real junk mail, annoying phone calls from the LA Times, etc. People have become so frustrated with these things that they've long given up the idea of fighting them; but with the internet, they now see an opportunity to "nip it in the bud" this time around. People feel that the struggle against spam is a battle that can still be won, so it gives them a feeling of hope and control that they've lost elsewhere in their lives.
The real issue is still real junk mail and unsolicited phone calls. I think of how many trees have to die every year for all that paper that never even makes it into my house, because I stop at the trash can on the way in from the mailbox. The outrageous invasion of privacy of companies like the LA Times makes me sick: even if you pay extra for an unlisted number, they somehow find it, and manage to be the first to call on your new, "secret" line. I think of all those arthritis-stricken senior citizens struggling in great pain to get to the phone, thinking it's an urgent call from a doctor or family member; only to find some fuckhead from the LA Times on the other end, who's already been told several times to stop calling.
Junk email, OTOH, imposes nothing on the recipient but a few mouse clicks. I'm not an ISP administrator, but I suspect the marginal cost of junk email isn't that big a deal. And when I think of the alternatives already mentioned, it's an even smaller price for society to pay.
I don't know what to do about unsolicited phone calls, except re-engineer this country's privacy laws and enforcement policies. Regarding junk mail, the paper kind, I'd love to see postage rates double, or triple. Think of all the trees that would be saved. What about the small service businesses that rely on coupons, fliers, etc? Let 'em burn. The ones who are any good are always booked solid from word of mouth. If the others need to advertise this way, there's usually a reason.
Bring on the junk email, I don't care! A dozen or two extra mouse clicks a day won't kill us! Let's concentrate on the real problems!
This is a load of crap. Lack of internet taxation favors small businesses, who can put up simple ecommerce sites in order to compete with anyone. If small businesses aren't already on the web, and using it to their advantage, they're screwed anyway. Petty issues like a few percent sales tax aren't going to make a difference. Offering the consumer something that no one else can is what will enable small businesses to succeed. There will always be room for that, but it does take brains and passion. If they can't do it, they deserve to die. Why should I patronize your cute little store unless you have something real to offer me? Tylenol is Tylenol, whether it comes from a quaint corner apothecary, or Walmart.
Walmart can afford super sophisitcated ecommerce stuff with 2700 separate tax jurisdictions programmed in. All that extra complication favors those with deep pockets, so naturally, Walmart will be for it, with the deepest pockets of all.
How about just letting local governemnts compete for our business through lower taxes? Cities and states with high taxes lose businesses to those with lower taxes. It's always been this way, and it should be. It's the best mechanism we have for making sure government spends our money wisely. If they're inefficient and allow taxes to rise too high, they'll drive business away, and their constituents will drive them out of office.
Nice sentiment, if only it were true. In my experience, most newspapers are shockingly content-free. Most of the so-called content is just advertorial verbage devoted to the biggest advertisers; usually, real estate firms and car dealerships. If there's editorial, it's nothing but sophomoric, polemic crap that's there only to get people to look at it to see how outrageous and bad it is, and then maybe look again next week for the equally outrageous rebuttals. "Did you see what Joe Muckymuck wrote in the Times on Sunday? Outrageous! Here, have a look..." Sheesh. Talk about the lowest common denominator!
People should be aware that this kind of thing is not limited to the web. The same thing happens over the telephone, when business services, merchandise, etc. There, the problem is even worse. A sales rep will take your order, ask you questions about everything under the sun, then take your credit card info, etc. When it sounds like they're finally entering your order, they then ask for permission to release your info to third parties, which is necessary for your order to be completed; because the order will actually be carried out by a subisidiary. If you refuse, or even hesitate, they act as annoyed as possible, making it clear that if you want the service, this is the only way you're going to get it without a lot of hassle. The whole thing is set up to wear you down while they ask all their questions, so you'll get impatient and say "OK" when they ask for permission to release your info. I'm not paranoid enough to think companies purposely set up a system of subsidiaries, etc., just for the purpose of reaping data; but once they have such an arrangement, they milk it for all its worth. And obviously, some of the best (or most evil) minds in the telemarketing biz are behind this stuff. One of the worst examples of this is when buying internet access from the phone company. They go through all the aforementioned stuff, and it seems there's little chance you'll be able to buy their product without lending permission, etc. The worst thing is that they have all your personal info, including perhaps credit info, etc., and now your email address. Some even put email addresses in the phone book, which they then sell and rent to everyone under the sun. Want to find someone via their (telco) email address? Just look in a cdrom telephone directory!
The problem with this article is that it simplistically and incorrectly presents Intel only from the perspective of the Intel vs. AMD chip war. One must step back and see the bigger picture. Intel is much more than just a chip maker. The lion's share of Intel's value is as a holding company. Intel has performed brilliantly in finding new technologies and markets to invest in, serving as an incubator for new companies, and then returning that success to their shareholders. Besides the direct profit from these investments, Intel can hedge each of its bets in several different ways. The key to Intel's success is not that they have simple control of the chip market, it's that they have "minor league" control of everything else. In almost every technology related market, an Intel-backed company is a dominant player.
You're mistakenly assuming that most new machines are sold with the latest/greatest processors, chips costing several hundred dollars. In fact, a 500 Mhz Crusoe chip probably holds up pretty darned well against a similarly-priced Celeron.
I called my cable company (Mediaone) the other day about getting internet access. They said it was $39.95 a month for their Roadrunner service, and $59.95 if I want to use another ISP. So they do have "open pipes," so to speak, but...
IMacs don't have a fan, and that's why they're so quiet. I think Apple did more than add some vents to be able to go fanless, though. I've heard talk of "laptop technology," etc. I wonder exactly what they did. Probably a low-power processor, etc. I'd like to look into it for a PC case design. I'm interested in building such a PC case, just for fun, or perhaps to market as a "barebones" system. I've seen several "quiet cases" on the market, but AFAIK, they were all designed to muffle the fan noise. Naturally, they were all quite expensive. If you designed the case and some heatsinks around the motherboard and power supply, you could probably do without the fan, and still have a fairly flexible barebones system to which poeple could add a reasonable number of cards and drives.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, graft is the American way. I'm sure the government is one of Microsoft's biggest customers, if not the absolute biggest, and Microsoft can certainly afford to buy clout in Washinton.
It's really unfortunate, because all that money being spent on Word, vs. saved by something like Staroffice, could pay a lot more teachers, build highways, etc.
Also, the bickering over who gets to be the supplier wastes time, and prevents vital things from being done. I can think of one case where a system for putting altitude transponders in aircraft was stalled for over 10 years, so certain politicians' "patrons" could come up with their own, and get the contract. In the meantime, scores of lives were lost in mid air collisions that could have easily been avoided.
If they really want to do something, kill the old-tech serial ports and give us USB and Firewire instead. Of course, this isn't great for Linux, but it sounds phenomenal for anything else.
If Compaq hadn't reverse engineered the PC, we'd all still be using $4000 IBMs, which might not be faster than a 386. The ability and right to reverse engineer is absolutely necessary. Without it, the economy would *really* be dominated by stone-age monopolies, and there would be no innovation. Proprietary locks are nothing but economic logjams. They prevent people with even better ideas from taking things to the next level, and continuing to create and add value.
Open source changes things in a way that reminds me of an old cliche: it's not what you have, but what you can do with it that counts. In an open source utopia, the marketplace would reward companies that can actually add value, rather than those that simply buy and hoard intellectual property. This would create an atmosphere of extreme competition where the only the smartest could prevail, a perfect meritocracy. As a result, we'd see much better software; but the real benefit would be the enhanced productivity in any industry that depends on that software. The entire economy would benefit, and that's really what counts.
If there's a downside to all this, it's that Joe Coder might not make the grade. Without extraordinary talent, there's little chance he'll be able to continue to improve upon what other talented programmers have done before. Without the protection of an IP-hoarding employer, his salary will wither because he's not really adding any value.
How do I feel about this? Burn, baby, burn.
If you want to look at it another way, consider IP to be an economic resource like land or capital. That resource is not doing us any good if it's being hoarded, rather than immediately put to every possible good use. An empty lot in the middle of a busy city is a waste. It might generate a relatively small amount of wealth for its owner as its value apprciates, but that's chickenfeed compared to what it could be contributing to the economy as a shopping mall or office park. In fact, this is one argument for property tax. It prevents people from simply hoarding land, and encourages putting that land to good use (to pay the tax).
This is exactly what happens with IP, too. If someone is hoarding the source code, someone else with a better idea is prevented from putting it to good use. And that hurts everyone.
Stallman could take a few lessons from Torvalds, especially in learning that one gets more bees with honey than with vinegar. Ultimately, that's why Linux is Linux, and not GNU. Stallman may be blessed with some exceptional abilities, but he's still an immature jackass.
I thought Esperanto went out with The Partridge Family, Foghat, and the Metric system. I guess what goes around comes around...
Read through the Ars Digita University stuff on Greenspun's site again. You'll see that this is the whole idea: to give the people with "a clue" a crash course in CS, so they'll be able to put their ideas to work.
KPFK is a unique and wonderful station, supported by listeners only. It takes no money from corporations or government agencies. The upside of this is that it doesn't have to worry about biting the hand that feeds it, which can result in some very fine journalism. The downside is that there is no money to pay people to do all this stuff. So, if you'd like to see the show transcripts on the net, why don't you volunteer to do it?
The colors may look "washed out" on the pro's image, but this is typical with a scanned image. It can be corrected easily with Photoshop, etc. Keep in mind that a computer screen has a greater luminance range than paper; so an image that was shot and developed for printing is not going to reproduce optimally on screen without some work.
I find your "jockstrap" comment amusing. You know what they say about a big camera as a substitute for something else...
I'm with you. That's the first thing that came to mind when I read this article. I want to hear what the man himself has to say, not the hack attitude-monger that wrote this article. How about a link to the source?
I think the fuss over unsolicited email stems from pent-up frustration over real junk mail, annoying phone calls from the LA Times, etc. People have become so frustrated with these things that they've long given up the idea of fighting them; but with the internet, they now see an opportunity to "nip it in the bud" this time around. People feel that the struggle against spam is a battle that can still be won, so it gives them a feeling of hope and control that they've lost elsewhere in their lives.
The real issue is still real junk mail and unsolicited phone calls. I think of how many trees have to die every year for all that paper that never even makes it into my house, because I stop at the trash can on the way in from the mailbox. The outrageous invasion of privacy of companies like the LA Times makes me sick: even if you pay extra for an unlisted number, they somehow find it, and manage to be the first to call on your new, "secret" line. I think of all those arthritis-stricken senior citizens struggling in great pain to get to the phone, thinking it's an urgent call from a doctor or family member; only to find some fuckhead from the LA Times on the other end, who's already been told several times to stop calling.
Junk email, OTOH, imposes nothing on the recipient but a few mouse clicks. I'm not an ISP administrator, but I suspect the marginal cost of junk email isn't that big a deal. And when I think of the alternatives already mentioned, it's an even smaller price for society to pay.
I don't know what to do about unsolicited phone calls, except re-engineer this country's privacy laws and enforcement policies. Regarding junk mail, the paper kind, I'd love to see postage rates double, or triple. Think of all the trees that would be saved. What about the small service businesses that rely on coupons, fliers, etc? Let 'em burn. The ones who are any good are always booked solid from word of mouth. If the others need to advertise this way, there's usually a reason.
Bring on the junk email, I don't care! A dozen or two extra mouse clicks a day won't kill us! Let's concentrate on the real problems!
This is a load of crap. Lack of internet taxation favors small businesses, who can put up simple ecommerce sites in order to compete with anyone. If small businesses aren't already on the web, and using it to their advantage, they're screwed anyway. Petty issues like a few percent sales tax aren't going to make a difference. Offering the consumer something that no one else can is what will enable small businesses to succeed. There will always be room for that, but it does take brains and passion. If they can't do it, they deserve to die. Why should I patronize your cute little store unless you have something real to offer me? Tylenol is Tylenol, whether it comes from a quaint corner apothecary, or Walmart.
Walmart can afford super sophisitcated ecommerce stuff with 2700 separate tax jurisdictions programmed in. All that extra complication favors those with deep pockets, so naturally, Walmart will be for it, with the deepest pockets of all.
How about just letting local governemnts compete for our business through lower taxes? Cities and states with high taxes lose businesses to those with lower taxes. It's always been this way, and it should be. It's the best mechanism we have for making sure government spends our money wisely. If they're inefficient and allow taxes to rise too high, they'll drive business away, and their constituents will drive them out of office.
Traditional retailers can't compete because they're too dumb and too slow to keep up with what consumers want, so tough shit for them.
Yes, but it's not portable. Otherwise, it's a really cool unit!
Nice sentiment, if only it were true. In my experience, most newspapers are shockingly content-free. Most of the so-called content is just advertorial verbage devoted to the biggest advertisers; usually, real estate firms and car dealerships. If there's editorial, it's nothing but sophomoric, polemic crap that's there only to get people to look at it to see how outrageous and bad it is, and then maybe look again next week for the equally outrageous rebuttals. "Did you see what Joe Muckymuck wrote in the Times on Sunday? Outrageous! Here, have a look..." Sheesh. Talk about the lowest common denominator!
People should be aware that this kind of thing is not limited to the web. The same thing happens over the telephone, when business services, merchandise, etc. There, the problem is even worse. A sales rep will take your order, ask you questions about everything under the sun, then take your credit card info, etc. When it sounds like they're finally entering your order, they then ask for permission to release your info to third parties, which is necessary for your order to be completed; because the order will actually be carried out by a subisidiary. If you refuse, or even hesitate, they act as annoyed as possible, making it clear that if you want the service, this is the only way you're going to get it without a lot of hassle. The whole thing is set up to wear you down while they ask all their questions, so you'll get impatient and say "OK" when they ask for permission to release your info. I'm not paranoid enough to think companies purposely set up a system of subsidiaries, etc., just for the purpose of reaping data; but once they have such an arrangement, they milk it for all its worth. And obviously, some of the best (or most evil) minds in the telemarketing biz are behind this stuff. One of the worst examples of this is when buying internet access from the phone company. They go through all the aforementioned stuff, and it seems there's little chance you'll be able to buy their product without lending permission, etc. The worst thing is that they have all your personal info, including perhaps credit info, etc., and now your email address. Some even put email addresses in the phone book, which they then sell and rent to everyone under the sun. Want to find someone via their (telco) email address? Just look in a cdrom telephone directory!
Hey, I thought that was my joke (and I'm sure 100,000 other people thought it was theirs, too)!
The problem with this article is that it simplistically and incorrectly presents Intel only from the perspective of the Intel vs. AMD chip war. One must step back and see the bigger picture. Intel is much more than just a chip maker. The lion's share of Intel's value is as a holding company. Intel has performed brilliantly in finding new technologies and markets to invest in, serving as an incubator for new companies, and then returning that success to their shareholders. Besides the direct profit from these investments, Intel can hedge each of its bets in several different ways. The key to Intel's success is not that they have simple control of the chip market, it's that they have "minor league" control of everything else. In almost every technology related market, an Intel-backed company is a dominant player.
I've been thinkin' the same thing...
You're mistakenly assuming that most new machines are sold with the latest/greatest processors, chips costing several hundred dollars. In fact, a 500 Mhz Crusoe chip probably holds up pretty darned well against a similarly-priced Celeron.
I called my cable company (Mediaone) the other day about getting internet access. They said it was $39.95 a month for their Roadrunner service, and $59.95 if I want to use another ISP. So they do have "open pipes," so to speak, but...
IMacs don't have a fan, and that's why they're so quiet. I think Apple did more than add some vents to be able to go fanless, though. I've heard talk of "laptop technology," etc. I wonder exactly what they did. Probably a low-power processor, etc. I'd like to look into it for a PC case design. I'm interested in building such a PC case, just for fun, or perhaps to market as a "barebones" system. I've seen several "quiet cases" on the market, but AFAIK, they were all designed to muffle the fan noise. Naturally, they were all quite expensive. If you designed the case and some heatsinks around the motherboard and power supply, you could probably do without the fan, and still have a fairly flexible barebones system to which poeple could add a reasonable number of cards and drives.