Just because it was true in the 1950's and kind of has a caveman feel to it, doesn't mean there isn't a ring of truth to it. If you go over to http://www.avsforum.com/ you'd be surprised as to the number of posts talking about passing the spouse test regards to being esthetically pleasing on required cable hiding, etc.
Not sure I agree with your conclusion on those three items
1) New type of processor = sony innovation (every console has a new type of processor, Sony deviates from the old one enough to be an innovative thought) 2) New type of disc drive = push Bluray == HD-DVD (including it in the base an inovation compared to an add on is a niceity not an innovation) 3) HD = the first Xbox was able to do HD
The PS3 for basically everything but the cell processor, it's almost a "me-too" game: Xbox has downloads, a hard drive, and media center... well we'll have that too. Nintendo has a motion controller... well we'll have that too. None of this is innovative, it's simply evolutionary giving people what they want (pretty shiney things). A HDMI port is not innovative, a hard drive is not innovative, a new DVD format is not innovative; something never done anywhere else is innovative, all these things are evolutionary. (This applies to MS as well, since everyting there is really evolutionary as well, they don't even have the cell precessor)
Exactly! Just like if one of the console makers decided for us to ram a specific next-gen dvd format down our throats. If they ship with a format that only a small protion of the population wants/needs, the price of the unit goes up for all purchases (and could possibly delay the release of the product by almost a year). never has this been the chosen option for a company looking to generate the most sales (and i think we can safely assume that is what sony wants).
And it a company were to be foolish enough to do that just to gain marketshare, they wouldn't be so uterly stupid to not include all the cables, etc to make it just work out of the box, else they are undoing all the effort they used to force in the specific format and simply picking extra cost & delay to market.
Nice way to dodge the argument and completely ignore the most critical part of it, good job way to go!
Having a little more freedom != good, having more freedom under house arrest is better than prison, but wouldn't not be under any restrictions at all be the best? Since you tried to dodge it, let me say it again: the GPL is a bad to release under for government funded research, only completely unencombered license is good. Less bad != good.
Maybe you should first put down your zealotry and reread this whole thread again, because you've ventured way, way off course. I've never said anything bad about the GPL for individuals, you want to release it under the GPL fine (heck I have).
What I am saying is that for tax funded projects, there should be absolutely no restrictions against using it anyway I want if some of my dollars went to it. The GPL has restrictions and should *not* be the release license for tax funded projects, nor should closed source released products come out of government funded projects. It isn't about the status quo or anything else, it's simply that government funded projects paid for by taxable dollars, should not have any burdens upon for the simple reason that it's the only way all parties are treated fairly, elsewise someone who actually paid for it getting screwed.
Also if it's government funded than it IS being forced on me, maybe not in use but in paying for something encombered with a restricted license (closed or GPL).
Maybe read the parent post, the one where he goes on and on about how using it doesn't require you to do anything. And my post was basically his blathering on and on about "use" really means nothing because Microsoft really doesn't care about using it internally, since it isn't making software for itself, but for redistribution to others.
Actually you are very, very wrong on the interpretation. I don't think that I have a direct right to anything the government purchases with tax money, whether it be paper hats, or software. I do think everyone has a right to profit from the intellectual research they paid for with those taxes and I think that the government should not be forcing any restrictions on it. In my opinion proprietary is bad and the GPL is bad, only completely unencombered government research is good.
I don't think I'm missing the point at all, I think maybe you didn't read my post. Because the last line is almost what I said but let me modify it to what I was actually saying:
The whole argument boils down to: no freedoms BAD (the status quo), some freedoms bad (the GPL), all freedoms good (unrestricted use of FOSS code, even to the point of taking it out of the FOSS realm by closing your source).
Again going down a stupid rathole, with that thought I should be able to include any GPL software in closed software because (to use your own words) "where's the damage"?
So you are saying that it's alright for the government to take money from you, make you pay for some research and basically say you can only have access to it if you use it this way? Tell me why the government should not be pushing completely unencombered licensing of research technology? Why should the government be forcing ideology down anyones throats, either closed MS or FSF approaches. Shouldn't it just be free to be used by anyone, in anyway shape or form?
You do realize that to MS "use" is on redistributing something don't you? They'd have a really, really, really expensive R&D with hardly any return if they only developed for applications inside MS.
That argument is like saying I should be able to drag the photocopier out from the school because I paid for it as well. Or that I should be able to pull up a few boards from the gym to add onto my house. Do you really want to go down that rathole, you are able to see the difference between the two aren't you?
Someone should define what they mean when they say OSS software, if they are meaning in the BSD way, MS has less of a legitimate beef. But if they are thinking GPL way, then I think MS probably has a very legitimate beef. If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it; I think lots of companies probably would have a beef with it.
If it's adopting licenses that basically directly prevent them from doing something, I would very much expect them to have a problem with it and quash the recomendation. If it's truely a free license with no restrictions than I would expect them to have no problems with it.
which is exactly what HA wanted to do. Obeying robots.txt files is voluntary, after all, and if the company didn't want the information online, they shouldn't have put it there in the first place
So by the logic, if I didn't want AOL to release my search information I shouldn't be mad as it's my fault to have used them in the first place? Or that if I want my copyrighted information to not be republished by someone else, I should just simply not publish at all? How about, if I don't want my GPL code resold by someone in a closed source product I should just know better and not put it out in the open to begin with. And that if I post something stupid when I'm 9 we believe it should follow me around throughout my entire lifetime, because a 9 year old should know better.
That one has quite a lot of buzz around it, I'm still waiting to do the upgrade until HDMI 1.3 gets into sets. The Westy's have had some interesting "lockup" issues and when the HDMI guys have said the new spec "caused a few bugs" with HDCP, I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon yet. I would be seriously pissed if my 1.2 HDMI TV wouldn't be able to talk to my new 1.3 HDMI device because HDCP wasn't talking just right with 1.3 (I'm especially more wait-and-see after reading about all the current HDCP issues let alone adding a new HDMI spec).
Too bad it won't take a 1080p signal. You've fallen for one of the great wonders of the video world, advertising scalled inputs resolutions while actual native input resolution being something different hidden amongst the fine print.
But I think the rub might be that, you've had to pay that 120 multiple times for each upgrade, whereas XP has had some major overhalls over the years with no cost; SP1 & SP2 are very big changes and didn't cost a dime. The upgrade to ultimate is ~price of 2x OSX upgrades, unfortunately because Apple has a monopoly on hardware that OSX can run on, the total cost of OS X is still substantially higher.
Course I just avoid the whole issue for my personal machine and run Fedora + XGL, because I don't have gaming, 3rd party software, etc requirements so I don't have to worry at all about high-cost operating systems or high-cost hardware + costly operating system feature upgrades.
It isnt really helpful to have a right...that you cannot excercise in any fashion without breaking the law...
Helpful, yes... required, no. US citizens have a right to bear arms for a purpose of protection from the government, however it is illegal to use those arms against the government.
So your experiment expect people to not apply any Windows patches, but at the same time expect people to install a 3rd party personal firewall??? Is it just me in thinking that there is a very remote probability of this situation actually occuring?
Umm... since Walmart regularly carries "R" rated movies, and "M" rated games, etc that's probably not the reason.
More likely the reason is that because the game hasn't been given an "official" rating yet, they feel they could be a civil case risk. If some 12 year old pre-orders the game now, but upon delivery it actually has a "M" rating; in our sue-happy society someone is going to go after the big-money Walmart. And it will cost them millions to just fight the case, or multiple tens of thousands to simply settle it. Theoretically they could possibly be even held legally liable by the government, it's not passed yet but look at Clinton & Liberman's "The Family Entertainment Protection Act", which would make it illegal to sell adult games to minors. (Clinton's made direct complaint's about Walmart's selling of games to minors, so they know they are the politician's crosshairs)
This is simply a CYA move, why would any large company take preorders on a game in limbo like this assuming the significant amount of possible risk associated to it with not much to gain?
Most of the datacenters around here lease gear, and the normal span is 3 years. So every three years you replace the gear. We have some crusty/musty things on our datacenter floor that were purchased, and because of that we now have to ebay parts for 10 year old DEC VMS boxes. The cost to maintain equipment after the third year goes up significantly, often support contracts from vendors skyrocket to where it doesn't make business sense to continue using that old gear anymore.
Actually I think most datacenters are caring about pure power consumption. In that the useful life of gear is fairly low, and must be replaced often. Not a problem, until one thinks how a business application that today runs on a 1.2ghz box gets it's hardware replaced with a that uses significantly more power, but the business requirement didn't change. I only have so much HVAC in the datacenter, and to upgrade the core infrastructure to support the new power requirements often falls into big money, so it's a *significant* issue for business.
HDTV by definition has to be better than DVD, again you have more source data. What you are saying there is comparing apples to oranges. Again, from the same source a rip can be made to look better than the original, but the original can *always* be made to look better than any rip using post processing as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it was true in the 1950's and kind of has a caveman feel to it, doesn't mean there isn't a ring of truth to it. If you go over to http://www.avsforum.com/ you'd be surprised as to the number of posts talking about passing the spouse test regards to being esthetically pleasing on required cable hiding, etc.
Not sure I agree with your conclusion on those three items
1) New type of processor = sony innovation (every console has a new type of processor, Sony deviates from the old one enough to be an innovative thought)
2) New type of disc drive = push Bluray == HD-DVD (including it in the base an inovation compared to an add on is a niceity not an innovation)
3) HD = the first Xbox was able to do HD
The PS3 for basically everything but the cell processor, it's almost a "me-too" game: Xbox has downloads, a hard drive, and media center... well we'll have that too. Nintendo has a motion controller... well we'll have that too. None of this is innovative, it's simply evolutionary giving people what they want (pretty shiney things). A HDMI port is not innovative, a hard drive is not innovative, a new DVD format is not innovative; something never done anywhere else is innovative, all these things are evolutionary. (This applies to MS as well, since everyting there is really evolutionary as well, they don't even have the cell precessor)
Exactly! Just like if one of the console makers decided for us to ram a specific next-gen dvd format down our throats. If they ship with a format that only a small protion of the population wants/needs, the price of the unit goes up for all purchases (and could possibly delay the release of the product by almost a year). never has this been the chosen option for a company looking to generate the most sales (and i think we can safely assume that is what sony wants).
And it a company were to be foolish enough to do that just to gain marketshare, they wouldn't be so uterly stupid to not include all the cables, etc to make it just work out of the box, else they are undoing all the effort they used to force in the specific format and simply picking extra cost & delay to market.
Nice way to dodge the argument and completely ignore the most critical part of it, good job way to go!
Having a little more freedom != good, having more freedom under house arrest is better than prison, but wouldn't not be under any restrictions at all be the best? Since you tried to dodge it, let me say it again: the GPL is a bad to release under for government funded research, only completely unencombered license is good. Less bad != good.
Maybe you should first put down your zealotry and reread this whole thread again, because you've ventured way, way off course. I've never said anything bad about the GPL for individuals, you want to release it under the GPL fine (heck I have).
What I am saying is that for tax funded projects, there should be absolutely no restrictions against using it anyway I want if some of my dollars went to it. The GPL has restrictions and should *not* be the release license for tax funded projects, nor should closed source released products come out of government funded projects. It isn't about the status quo or anything else, it's simply that government funded projects paid for by taxable dollars, should not have any burdens upon for the simple reason that it's the only way all parties are treated fairly, elsewise someone who actually paid for it getting screwed.
Also if it's government funded than it IS being forced on me, maybe not in use but in paying for something encombered with a restricted license (closed or GPL).
Maybe read the parent post, the one where he goes on and on about how using it doesn't require you to do anything. And my post was basically his blathering on and on about "use" really means nothing because Microsoft really doesn't care about using it internally, since it isn't making software for itself, but for redistribution to others.
Actually you are very, very wrong on the interpretation. I don't think that I have a direct right to anything the government purchases with tax money, whether it be paper hats, or software. I do think everyone has a right to profit from the intellectual research they paid for with those taxes and I think that the government should not be forcing any restrictions on it. In my opinion proprietary is bad and the GPL is bad, only completely unencombered government research is good.
I don't think I'm missing the point at all, I think maybe you didn't read my post. Because the last line is almost what I said but let me modify it to what I was actually saying:
The whole argument boils down to: no freedoms BAD (the status quo), some freedoms bad (the GPL), all freedoms good (unrestricted use of FOSS code, even to the point of taking it out of the FOSS realm by closing your source).
Again going down a stupid rathole, with that thought I should be able to include any GPL software in closed software because (to use your own words) "where's the damage"?
So you are saying that it's alright for the government to take money from you, make you pay for some research and basically say you can only have access to it if you use it this way? Tell me why the government should not be pushing completely unencombered licensing of research technology? Why should the government be forcing ideology down anyones throats, either closed MS or FSF approaches. Shouldn't it just be free to be used by anyone, in anyway shape or form?
but someone complains about Microsoft's licensing and you think they're being unreasonable?
DO NOT EVER PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I'd like to see a direct quote of mine ever saying that. Back your bullshit lies up.
You do realize that to MS "use" is on redistributing something don't you? They'd have a really, really, really expensive R&D with hardly any return if they only developed for applications inside MS.
That argument is like saying I should be able to drag the photocopier out from the school because I paid for it as well. Or that I should be able to pull up a few boards from the gym to add onto my house. Do you really want to go down that rathole, you are able to see the difference between the two aren't you?
Someone should define what they mean when they say OSS software, if they are meaning in the BSD way, MS has less of a legitimate beef. But if they are thinking GPL way, then I think MS probably has a very legitimate beef. If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it; I think lots of companies probably would have a beef with it.
If it's adopting licenses that basically directly prevent them from doing something, I would very much expect them to have a problem with it and quash the recomendation. If it's truely a free license with no restrictions than I would expect them to have no problems with it.
which is exactly what HA wanted to do. Obeying robots.txt files is voluntary, after all, and if the company didn't want the information online, they shouldn't have put it there in the first place
So by the logic, if I didn't want AOL to release my search information I shouldn't be mad as it's my fault to have used them in the first place? Or that if I want my copyrighted information to not be republished by someone else, I should just simply not publish at all? How about, if I don't want my GPL code resold by someone in a closed source product I should just know better and not put it out in the open to begin with. And that if I post something stupid when I'm 9 we believe it should follow me around throughout my entire lifetime, because a 9 year old should know better.
That one has quite a lot of buzz around it, I'm still waiting to do the upgrade until HDMI 1.3 gets into sets. The Westy's have had some interesting "lockup" issues and when the HDMI guys have said the new spec "caused a few bugs" with HDCP, I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon yet. I would be seriously pissed if my 1.2 HDMI TV wouldn't be able to talk to my new 1.3 HDMI device because HDCP wasn't talking just right with 1.3 (I'm especially more wait-and-see after reading about all the current HDCP issues let alone adding a new HDMI spec).
Too bad it won't take a 1080p signal. You've fallen for one of the great wonders of the video world, advertising scalled inputs resolutions while actual native input resolution being something different hidden amongst the fine print.
But I think the rub might be that, you've had to pay that 120 multiple times for each upgrade, whereas XP has had some major overhalls over the years with no cost; SP1 & SP2 are very big changes and didn't cost a dime. The upgrade to ultimate is ~price of 2x OSX upgrades, unfortunately because Apple has a monopoly on hardware that OSX can run on, the total cost of OS X is still substantially higher.
Course I just avoid the whole issue for my personal machine and run Fedora + XGL, because I don't have gaming, 3rd party software, etc requirements so I don't have to worry at all about high-cost operating systems or high-cost hardware + costly operating system feature upgrades.
It isnt really helpful to have a right...that you cannot excercise in any fashion without breaking the law...
Helpful, yes... required, no. US citizens have a right to bear arms for a purpose of protection from the government, however it is illegal to use those arms against the government.
So your experiment expect people to not apply any Windows patches, but at the same time expect people to install a 3rd party personal firewall??? Is it just me in thinking that there is a very remote probability of this situation actually occuring?
Umm... since Walmart regularly carries "R" rated movies, and "M" rated games, etc that's probably not the reason.
More likely the reason is that because the game hasn't been given an "official" rating yet, they feel they could be a civil case risk. If some 12 year old pre-orders the game now, but upon delivery it actually has a "M" rating; in our sue-happy society someone is going to go after the big-money Walmart. And it will cost them millions to just fight the case, or multiple tens of thousands to simply settle it. Theoretically they could possibly be even held legally liable by the government, it's not passed yet but look at Clinton & Liberman's "The Family Entertainment Protection Act", which would make it illegal to sell adult games to minors. (Clinton's made direct complaint's about Walmart's selling of games to minors, so they know they are the politician's crosshairs)
This is simply a CYA move, why would any large company take preorders on a game in limbo like this assuming the significant amount of possible risk associated to it with not much to gain?
Most of the datacenters around here lease gear, and the normal span is 3 years. So every three years you replace the gear. We have some crusty/musty things on our datacenter floor that were purchased, and because of that we now have to ebay parts for 10 year old DEC VMS boxes. The cost to maintain equipment after the third year goes up significantly, often support contracts from vendors skyrocket to where it doesn't make business sense to continue using that old gear anymore.
Actually I think most datacenters are caring about pure power consumption. In that the useful life of gear is fairly low, and must be replaced often. Not a problem, until one thinks how a business application that today runs on a 1.2ghz box gets it's hardware replaced with a that uses significantly more power, but the business requirement didn't change. I only have so much HVAC in the datacenter, and to upgrade the core infrastructure to support the new power requirements often falls into big money, so it's a *significant* issue for business.
HDTV by definition has to be better than DVD, again you have more source data. What you are saying there is comparing apples to oranges. Again, from the same source a rip can be made to look better than the original, but the original can *always* be made to look better than any rip using post processing as well.
You might want to re-read the post standardize upon Redhat 9, which then had it support cut a year later.