This GPL FUD of late is getting a bit annoying: why should an office suite released under the GPL be a deal-breaker for some businesses*? I recently bought some games from GOG and DotEmu and wonder what? During the installation there was an EULA for the closed source software and then the full text of the GPL: those games were in facts a bundle of a closed source installation/launcher program made by GOG/DotEmu, an open source GPL'ed application (DosBox or SCUMMvm) and the original closed source game. It seems that someone is not scared by the boogeyman Stallman.
*if they want to just use the application or create some new templates (99.99% of them) they can do it without releasing anything; if they want to modify the program for internal use only, they can do it without releasing anything.
Look at xbox, pretty successful and no mention of windows...
A.K.A. DirectX Troy Horse.
Besides that I'm not sure it is pretty succesful in monetary terms, the R&D costs (billions of dollars) are accounted separately from the Entertainment and Devices Division.
The USSR was pretty innovative nonetheless (sputnik, the LUNA programme, Gagarin, MIR, TOKAMAK, aircraft supermanoevreability, most of the chaotic systems theory...)
It's in the peer-reviewed article, and a couple of those authors are clearly of Asian descents (Gavamian is an iranic surname, and Jeonghee speaks for itself).
Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Absolutely not: total exposition means little to nothing. A US nuclear worker can take 50 mSv/year for 20 years and live happy for 50 years afterwards, you can take half that dose in a day and be radiation sick.
Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much.
And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.
This could be true if cell phones and behaviours didn't change in the last twenty years. Unfortunately they changed, so it is an utterly false assumption. Prior to 1995: no SMS (first delivered in 1993, very limited adoption until the second half of the '90s), no internet surfing, no apps, heavy and cumbersome (you couldn't put your phone in you pocket prior to 1990), very limited battery life (you could use it for a few hours a day, only when needed), limited band (no dual band, no tri band, no quad band, just one), lower frequencies (max 950MHz, not 1.9 GHz and beyond), very costly (so no teenagers, you may think that altering the physiology of a teenager is more dangerous than altering that of a middle aged business man).
Prior to 1995 phones had limited use and were used accordingly, today people keep their phones at hand and turned on 24 hours a day, 20 years ago you couldn't do it even if you wanted to (and there weren't much reasons to want it too).
Most of the world operates on first-to-file, not first-to-invent.
Not in Europe. If you have not a fully working implementation of your idea, you can't file a single patent for that idea. You can't patent ideas, just inventions.
Another thought experiment. a 1" rod 1 light year long. you move it 1/16 of a centimeter. How long does it take for the movement to register at the other end?
A: its instant, for it does not need to move any faster than the time it took you to move it.
This is clearly wrong. The input at one end of the rod propagates along the rod at a speed lower than c, if the rod had no mass and no inertia the input could propagate at c.
It doesnt mean 100% market share. It doesnt mean that there are no alternatives. It means a dominance in one market so great that the company can pick who the winners and losers in another market will be.
Its OK to be a monopoly as long as you dont start picking winners and losers in other markets. The moment you do, such as bundling Internet Explorer with another product, its an anti-trust issue.
Google is accused specifically of picking winners and losers in other markets.
But Google is not forcing anyone like MS did. MS was fined because:
1) You could not buy a pc without MS Windows preinstalled (exclusivity deals with resellers)
2) MS Windows forced you to use MS IE (do you remember the joke? IE is good for downloading FF.)
3) You could not uninstall IE.
4) You paid all this.
Do you think that Google's services are not good, because you suspect they are cooking their results? Don't use them, you can. This is not a monopoly leverage.
Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting.
However it is still the most open out there, or like Stallman said the less bad. In fact the last time I checked gnu.org had an article about Android Development on its first page. Perhaps Android is not free as the GNU project would like, perhaps Google is not good as someone likes to think, but the remaining is far worse: MS and Apple are a nightmare, Novell, Oracle and all the other big players are pretty bad.
The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems.
No, it got so much support because everyone can write and release an application for it. Not only that, everyone can write and release an application for Android using free software and free software libraries.
Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor
No. There's a "still" too much. Apple became the number 1 just in the last quarter when it took over Nokia, thanks Microsoft for this. However it's a head to head with Samsung, which is growing much faster (thanks to Android by the way), so it could be a very short lived lead.
and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.
[citation needed], in the smartphone market Android is selling 2.5 times iOS. I smell bullshit here: Q3 2011 (millions)
iPad 9.25
iPhone 20.34
iPod 7.54
---------iOs total 37.13
Android smartphones ~50
But probably you have got some secret figures that show heavy negative sales for android tablets...
Besides the fact that ENIAC was built after the war, you've almost persuaded me: the US government should never had funded ARPANET and the INTERNET, I've just realized how bad an idea it was. It's much better to bail out failing banks and insurance companies.
Moreover this accident has little to do with nuclear energy. It's a furnace used to burn organic waste with low level of radiation: lab coats, radiology gowns and the like.
Well, I want privately operated power plants with new types of design, that's what I want all over the place. I want private money being allowed into the field, letting up on the government regulations, I want a tiny nuclear reactor in my house and in my car and at some point in my lightsaber, how about that?
Do not delude youself.
Tepco knew that the Fukushima plant had serious design flaws from the start, but they chose to operate it nonetheless to not lose money, they even operated it beyond its projected lifespan to maximize their revenue.
At Chernobyl an ambitious and inexpert junior chief engineer tried to run an experiment for his personal prestige, while the senior chief engineer was absent. The very old design of the plant made the rest.
The worst industrial accident of all times is still the Bhopal disaster in India, where a privately operated chemical factory (owned by a US company) blew up a few thousands indians.
Privately operated companies are subjected to greed, and greed is not compatible with security and safety.
It should be "Linux 3D Games Run Faster On PC-BSD with KDE than on Ubuntu Linux with Unity, on NVidia hardware".
It's worth to note that KDE outperforms every gtk based desktop environment (gnome, unity, lxde...) when running on NVidia hardware.
Antitrust regulators must be chomping at the bit. This is old-school Microsoft behavior. Imagine how other Android smartphone vendors are feeling right now.
Maybe better since Motorola was collecting royalties for android.
Slashdot Mirror
This GPL FUD of late is getting a bit annoying: why should an office suite released under the GPL be a deal-breaker for some businesses*? I recently bought some games from GOG and DotEmu and wonder what? During the installation there was an EULA for the closed source software and then the full text of the GPL: those games were in facts a bundle of a closed source installation/launcher program made by GOG/DotEmu, an open source GPL'ed application (DosBox or SCUMMvm) and the original closed source game. It seems that someone is not scared by the boogeyman Stallman. *if they want to just use the application or create some new templates (99.99% of them) they can do it without releasing anything; if they want to modify the program for internal use only, they can do it without releasing anything.
The parent post is more insightful than funny. Sadly it is more insightful than funny.
Look at xbox, pretty successful and no mention of windows...
A.K.A. DirectX Troy Horse. Besides that I'm not sure it is pretty succesful in monetary terms, the R&D costs (billions of dollars) are accounted separately from the Entertainment and Devices Division.
Yeah, he's got nothing to gain from this crusade. I wonder why he deleted all the references to his microsoft employment from his curriculum, that's probably because there are no interests connected to him or maybe because he has nothing to gain. Really.... a lawyer who has nothing to gain...
Naaa, their shuttles never blew up so frequently.
The USSR was pretty innovative nonetheless (sputnik, the LUNA programme, Gagarin, MIR, TOKAMAK, aircraft supermanoevreability, most of the chaotic systems theory...)
It's in the peer-reviewed article, and a couple of those authors are clearly of Asian descents (Gavamian is an iranic surname, and Jeonghee speaks for itself).
Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Absolutely not: total exposition means little to nothing. A US nuclear worker can take 50 mSv/year for 20 years and live happy for 50 years afterwards, you can take half that dose in a day and be radiation sick.
Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much. And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.
This could be true if cell phones and behaviours didn't change in the last twenty years. Unfortunately they changed, so it is an utterly false assumption. Prior to 1995: no SMS (first delivered in 1993, very limited adoption until the second half of the '90s), no internet surfing, no apps, heavy and cumbersome (you couldn't put your phone in you pocket prior to 1990), very limited battery life (you could use it for a few hours a day, only when needed), limited band (no dual band, no tri band, no quad band, just one), lower frequencies (max 950MHz, not 1.9 GHz and beyond), very costly (so no teenagers, you may think that altering the physiology of a teenager is more dangerous than altering that of a middle aged business man). Prior to 1995 phones had limited use and were used accordingly, today people keep their phones at hand and turned on 24 hours a day, 20 years ago you couldn't do it even if you wanted to (and there weren't much reasons to want it too).
However this study is certainly flawed: it doesn't take into account daily usage. It's just based on the years of subscription.
Most of the world operates on first-to-file, not first-to-invent.
Not in Europe. If you have not a fully working implementation of your idea, you can't file a single patent for that idea. You can't patent ideas, just inventions.
That was not a bug, it was a feature!
Another thought experiment. a 1" rod 1 light year long. you move it 1/16 of a centimeter. How long does it take for the movement to register at the other end? A: its instant, for it does not need to move any faster than the time it took you to move it.
This is clearly wrong. The input at one end of the rod propagates along the rod at a speed lower than c, if the rod had no mass and no inertia the input could propagate at c.
In fact E = mc^2 + p^2/2m .
It doesnt mean 100% market share. It doesnt mean that there are no alternatives. It means a dominance in one market so great that the company can pick who the winners and losers in another market will be.
Its OK to be a monopoly as long as you dont start picking winners and losers in other markets. The moment you do, such as bundling Internet Explorer with another product, its an anti-trust issue.
Google is accused specifically of picking winners and losers in other markets.
But Google is not forcing anyone like MS did. MS was fined because:
1) You could not buy a pc without MS Windows preinstalled (exclusivity deals with resellers)
2) MS Windows forced you to use MS IE (do you remember the joke? IE is good for downloading FF.)
3) You could not uninstall IE.
4) You paid all this.
Do you think that Google's services are not good, because you suspect they are cooking their results? Don't use them, you can. This is not a monopoly leverage.
Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting.
However it is still the most open out there, or like Stallman said the less bad. In fact the last time I checked gnu.org had an article about Android Development on its first page. Perhaps Android is not free as the GNU project would like, perhaps Google is not good as someone likes to think, but the remaining is far worse: MS and Apple are a nightmare, Novell, Oracle and all the other big players are pretty bad.
The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems.
No, it got so much support because everyone can write and release an application for it. Not only that, everyone can write and release an application for Android using free software and free software libraries.
Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor
No. There's a "still" too much. Apple became the number 1 just in the last quarter when it took over Nokia, thanks Microsoft for this. However it's a head to head with Samsung, which is growing much faster (thanks to Android by the way), so it could be a very short lived lead.
and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.
[citation needed], in the smartphone market Android is selling 2.5 times iOS. I smell bullshit here:
Q3 2011 (millions)
iPad 9.25
iPhone 20.34
iPod 7.54
---------iOs total 37.13
Android smartphones ~50
But probably you have got some secret figures that show heavy negative sales for android tablets...
I think that this choice has a lot to do with politics. It's part of the row that includes the Turkey-Israel harsh diatribe and the last statements about Cyprus. It's a warning: Israel is still our ally.
Besides the fact that ENIAC was built after the war, you've almost persuaded me: the US government should never had funded ARPANET and the INTERNET, I've just realized how bad an idea it was. It's much better to bail out failing banks and insurance companies.
For Yuri Gagarin it worked. Even for Neil Armstrong. And for nuclear energy too... both fission and fusion. Not to mention ENIAC!
Moreover this accident has little to do with nuclear energy. It's a furnace used to burn organic waste with low level of radiation: lab coats, radiology gowns and the like.
Well, I want privately operated power plants with new types of design, that's what I want all over the place. I want private money being allowed into the field, letting up on the government regulations, I want a tiny nuclear reactor in my house and in my car and at some point in my lightsaber, how about that?
Do not delude youself.
Tepco knew that the Fukushima plant had serious design flaws from the start, but they chose to operate it nonetheless to not lose money, they even operated it beyond its projected lifespan to maximize their revenue.
At Chernobyl an ambitious and inexpert junior chief engineer tried to run an experiment for his personal prestige, while the senior chief engineer was absent. The very old design of the plant made the rest.
The worst industrial accident of all times is still the Bhopal disaster in India, where a privately operated chemical factory (owned by a US company) blew up a few thousands indians.
Privately operated companies are subjected to greed, and greed is not compatible with security and safety.
It should be "Linux 3D Games Run Faster On PC-BSD with KDE than on Ubuntu Linux with Unity, on NVidia hardware". It's worth to note that KDE outperforms every gtk based desktop environment (gnome, unity, lxde...) when running on NVidia hardware.
We can support 10 billion people, but not 10 billion rich people. That makes a lot of difference being from a rich country.
That's like saying I hope that police will never eradicate mafia, because competition is the best...
Antitrust regulators must be chomping at the bit. This is old-school Microsoft behavior. Imagine how other Android smartphone vendors are feeling right now.
Maybe better since Motorola was collecting royalties for android.
Folks: Google is the new evil empire. Microsoft is a weak old underdog with rabies.
Fixed.