Well, then the companies that don't have to outsource at all (foreign companies) beat all of our companies. You can't artificially prop up the value of something unless you are a monopoly.
Of course what I would like, would be something along the lines of a multi-computer dispatch-conf. That shows the diffs that are common on all the computers as just one left or right choice, and the lines that are different for each different computer just prompts you for an answer on each computer. Also, I would like for a cluster-emerge command that targets classes of computers, and instantiates emerge on each computer in the class how you would like it. Now that would be sweet.
Don't forget the manual 'dispatch-conf' on all 2000 of your machines. And if you know a way around that, then tell me because I would really like to know.
But see the problem is when the other companies have people "over a barrel" or are outsourcing, then they have an advantage over the one thats playing nicely with the union. And eventually the unionized company falls behind, more than likely because they can't provide as many incentives to investors so they can't grow like the non unionized companies.
How can you moderate down a post which presents easy to understand numbers as to why unions don't help anything? BTW, if you say well why doesn't the union fix the minimum wages and the minimum number employed locally then all you will get is a business that will go out of business because it can no longer compete with the businesses who don't have unions. Either that or it will go out of business because investors will find a more lucrative avenue to invest in.
OK, all you dumbasses who are confused about what a union actually does listen up. Workers get mad because they are getting lower wages because the people over seas can do their jobs cheaper. They form a union to stabilize their income. The business they work for no longer have any financial incentives to go with the local labor as opposed to over seas. Thusly, labor is outsourced over seas proportionally so as they are at most spending as much as they were before in this area of labor.
So before you had 9 locals making $100/ea (900 local dollars), the boss reduces salary to $50/ea (450 local dollars), a union forms forcing wages back to $100/ea (900 local dollars), in order to offset the costs the boss outsources until he is only paying out what he wants $100/local $25/outsourced to meet his total expenditures of $450 he only keeps 3 local and hires 6 outsourced (300 local dollars 150 outsourced dollars). In other words, there is a net loss in employment, and there is a net loss for the economy as a whole. Unions help a couple people keep their jobs, themselves and whatever proportion of people meet the ratio. Thats capitalism for ya. Now work out a better system, and post it here on slashdot.
It is troubling to see so many mindless f**** here
If you are going to imply it, just say it. It troubles me to see so many fucking pussies on here.
It's all software, a bunch of mathematical algorithms if you want. And it took decades of research at places like Bell Labs and IBM to achieve the present state-of-the-art.
Well, thats business bud. Do you think people would just stop creating things if patents didn't exist? Don't be stupid. And I'm glad you're so willing to let mathematical concepts be patented (which is all that software patents are). Lets see, mathematics used to be unpatentable and there has always been great strides in the advancement of math. Shouldn't they have had no incentive to do this?
The "productive" people in your definition are people who do not produce and publish original algorithms, but just code existing published algorithms into products without feeling any need to compensate the original inventors. That's why software patents are needed.
Yes, because there is no incentive to be innovative if you don't have a patent. You know, because just staying ahead of the competition wouldn't be enough motivation. People come up with novel concepts all the time, without even thinking twice about acquiring a governmentally enforced monopoly on it, because concepts are trivial to some while not to others.
Of course, I am talking about real software inventions, the likes of RSA, LZW, Karmarkar etc.
Above, you talk about the decades of research to get certain tasks accomplished. Well, if there weren't patents on it, then a larger collective of organization would naturally contribute to the solution in their quest to outdo each other, incrementally finding the solution that works best. I understand the internet would be far different without RSA, LZW, or Karmarkar. But do you think these ideas would have not existed without patents? I think discovery of these concepts would've happened no matter what. It would've just been more incremental and more evenly distributed.
Well, as far as I see it. The "inventors" (or at least the ones that file patents) in the software world are mainly the corporations who do a lot of dreaming and not much of anything else. The massive R&D companies who, having discovered little else that can prop them up, decide to be a malignant cancer on the sides of productive workers and businesses. The kind of cancer that yield no symptoms until it has metastasized throughout your body of works, and it is to late to cut it off (how do you like that analogy:-P ). I believe implementations should rule the day. Before software patents were legalized people still innovated. The innovative products were the ones that were bought, and the rest died. Business naturally pushes for this innovation, it does not need any artificial legalized monopoly to prop it up. Also, there is a lot of money to be made if you are first to market, don't kid yourself. Let the product that is more superior win. Thats what a free market is all about.
I'm just saying, why should these "inventors" be exempt from the free market. What makes their occupation special, and additionally when the USPTO is evaluating the validity of a patent, they should be taking into account the triviality of the invention. Except what may seem complex to a patent clerk can be trivial to others. At what point should I quit patenting things. Should I just submit my entire program function by function to the patent office. Isn't this what copyright is for?
Secondly, on the note of free software and patents, why are we even allowing applicability here. A program is just a terse representation of the source it represents, and if the source looks like a patent then doesn't that mean that the source is essentially a rewording of the original patent. Can't patents themselves be distributed freely?
Lastly, I thought the true intention of patents was to promote the spread of knowledge for the good of humanity, isn't this all that free software does.
You've been watching too many late night paid advertisements for coral calcium. You know, if something is presented to you in paid advertisement form, it is almost certainly a scam.
Open source implementations which are compatible with formats used by proprietary vendors are not proprietary software. Additionally, we would be nowhere without reverse engineering and the open sharing of knowledge. And that "we" includes proprietary software companies like Microsoft.
Yes, and that just goes to show that most of the time open source is better in a business than as a business. Cooperative investments in open source by multiple businesses are what made open source what it is today.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you even use gentoo?
But that is not the case. Hence, our nice cheap Chinese / Indian / Mexican labor.
Well, then the companies that don't have to outsource at all (foreign companies) beat all of our companies. You can't artificially prop up the value of something unless you are a monopoly.
Of course what I would like, would be something along the lines of a multi-computer dispatch-conf. That shows the diffs that are common on all the computers as just one left or right choice, and the lines that are different for each different computer just prompts you for an answer on each computer. Also, I would like for a cluster-emerge command that targets classes of computers, and instantiates emerge on each computer in the class how you would like it. Now that would be sweet.
But thats the only way you can get distcc to give you good compile times ;-).
Don't forget the manual 'dispatch-conf' on all 2000 of your machines. And if you know a way around that, then tell me because I would really like to know.
But see the problem is when the other companies have people "over a barrel" or are outsourcing, then they have an advantage over the one thats playing nicely with the union. And eventually the unionized company falls behind, more than likely because they can't provide as many incentives to investors so they can't grow like the non unionized companies.
No, I just said that compensation should be directly proportional to their worth.
Yes, lower the compensation for your C*O's and watch them fly to other companies.
How can you moderate down a post which presents easy to understand numbers as to why unions don't help anything? BTW, if you say well why doesn't the union fix the minimum wages and the minimum number employed locally then all you will get is a business that will go out of business because it can no longer compete with the businesses who don't have unions. Either that or it will go out of business because investors will find a more lucrative avenue to invest in.
OK, all you dumbasses who are confused about what a union actually does listen up. Workers get mad because they are getting lower wages because the people over seas can do their jobs cheaper. They form a union to stabilize their income. The business they work for no longer have any financial incentives to go with the local labor as opposed to over seas. Thusly, labor is outsourced over seas proportionally so as they are at most spending as much as they were before in this area of labor.
So before you had 9 locals making $100/ea (900 local dollars), the boss reduces salary to $50/ea (450 local dollars), a union forms forcing wages back to $100/ea (900 local dollars), in order to offset the costs the boss outsources until he is only paying out what he wants $100/local $25/outsourced to meet his total expenditures of $450 he only keeps 3 local and hires 6 outsourced (300 local dollars 150 outsourced dollars). In other words, there is a net loss in employment, and there is a net loss for the economy as a whole. Unions help a couple people keep their jobs, themselves and whatever proportion of people meet the ratio. Thats capitalism for ya. Now work out a better system, and post it here on slashdot.
tech is not a verb. Other than that I pretty much agree with you.
Kudos to Dish, can we submit open source games and such to them?
It is troubling to see so many mindless f**** here
If you are going to imply it, just say it. It troubles me to see so many fucking pussies on here.
It's all software, a bunch of mathematical algorithms if you want. And it took decades of research at places like Bell Labs and IBM to achieve the present state-of-the-art.
Well, thats business bud. Do you think people would just stop creating things if patents didn't exist? Don't be stupid. And I'm glad you're so willing to let mathematical concepts be patented (which is all that software patents are). Lets see, mathematics used to be unpatentable and there has always been great strides in the advancement of math. Shouldn't they have had no incentive to do this?
The "productive" people in your definition are people who do not produce and publish original algorithms, but just code existing published algorithms into products without feeling any need to compensate the original inventors. That's why software patents are needed.
Yes, because there is no incentive to be innovative if you don't have a patent. You know, because just staying ahead of the competition wouldn't be enough motivation. People come up with novel concepts all the time, without even thinking twice about acquiring a governmentally enforced monopoly on it, because concepts are trivial to some while not to others.
Of course, I am talking about real software inventions, the likes of RSA, LZW, Karmarkar etc.
Above, you talk about the decades of research to get certain tasks accomplished. Well, if there weren't patents on it, then a larger collective of organization would naturally contribute to the solution in their quest to outdo each other, incrementally finding the solution that works best. I understand the internet would be far different without RSA, LZW, or Karmarkar. But do you think these ideas would have not existed without patents? I think discovery of these concepts would've happened no matter what. It would've just been more incremental and more evenly distributed.
Well, as far as I see it. The "inventors" (or at least the ones that file patents) in the software world are mainly the corporations who do a lot of dreaming and not much of anything else. The massive R&D companies who, having discovered little else that can prop them up, decide to be a malignant cancer on the sides of productive workers and businesses. The kind of cancer that yield no symptoms until it has metastasized throughout your body of works, and it is to late to cut it off (how do you like that analogy :-P ). I believe implementations should rule the day. Before software patents were legalized people still innovated. The innovative products were the ones that were bought, and the rest died. Business naturally pushes for this innovation, it does not need any artificial legalized monopoly to prop it up. Also, there is a lot of money to be made if you are first to market, don't kid yourself. Let the product that is more superior win. Thats what a free market is all about.
I'm just saying, why should these "inventors" be exempt from the free market. What makes their occupation special, and additionally when the USPTO is evaluating the validity of a patent, they should be taking into account the triviality of the invention. Except what may seem complex to a patent clerk can be trivial to others. At what point should I quit patenting things. Should I just submit my entire program function by function to the patent office. Isn't this what copyright is for?
Secondly, on the note of free software and patents, why are we even allowing applicability here. A program is just a terse representation of the source it represents, and if the source looks like a patent then doesn't that mean that the source is essentially a rewording of the original patent. Can't patents themselves be distributed freely? Lastly, I thought the true intention of patents was to promote the spread of knowledge for the good of humanity, isn't this all that free software does.
They are entitled to no such thing. I just put a lot of time and money into starting up a business. Now where's my guaranteed fucking return.
You've been watching too many late night paid advertisements for coral calcium. You know, if something is presented to you in paid advertisement form, it is almost certainly a scam.
Open source implementations which are compatible with formats used by proprietary vendors are not proprietary software. Additionally, we would be nowhere without reverse engineering and the open sharing of knowledge. And that "we" includes proprietary software companies like Microsoft.
Don't deceive people, you're an ass.
Oh man, you beat me too it. Friggin' life of mine.
After digging through the itms xml crapola. Here is the link to the fullscreen mov.
The source to their modifications if you chose a decent license.
Yes, and that just goes to show that most of the time open source is better in a business than as a business. Cooperative investments in open source by multiple businesses are what made open source what it is today.
Yeah, and they'd just rip off the code anyways and dub it their own.