Over-rated? The Mars Polar Lander didn't fare so well during its landing.
Granted, that was a different system, but I'm not sure an airbag system will work for something over five times heavier than Spirit or Opportunity. Landing is definitely a hard thing to do.
FOSS is (generally, although not universally) free as in beer. Therefore, there is no sales tax. If someone sells you a CD with Linux on it, the sale would still be taxed under normal laws.
However, developing this software is not free. Many times, a company will want a customized feature added to a product that they already use, but don't want to develop in-house. They then pay a chunk of money to the project to have this feature developed ahead of other features.
The same thing happens in closed-source software. And this is what the law taxes, if I read it right.
There is one difference, however. In the closed-source world, there is often an agreement that these special features will not be available to the competition; a special branch is created just for that customer. For free software, the feature is available to all.
I was looking over the proposed law and found some interesting information on this.
First, I'm not a lawyer or politician. Be ye forewarned.
Page 87 makes it seem that this isn't a new tax, but a removal of an exemption. From the document:
(7)(a) The term also includes the sale of or charge made for custom software and the customization of prewritten computer software to a consumer, regardless of the method of delivery to the consumer. (b) The term also includes the charge made to consumers for the right to access and use custom software and customized prewritten computer software, where possession of the software is maintained by the seller or a third party.
In other words, the following are taxable:
1) The sale of "custom software" 2) The amount paid to customize software that's already written 3) Licensing fees to access custom software
Back to the original question in this thread, it seems that FOSS could fall under 2) in my list -- developers are often paid to add specific features (thereby customizing the software) by individual or companies. As nothing is charged for the sale and licensing of FOSS (generally), 1 and 3 woudn't apply.
I will say, however, that "custom software" is not defined in said document.
He said that there is little demand for democracy among ordinary Chinese, but there is a huge wish for accountability.... but that democracy isn't really seen as relevant to that debate.
Your friend hit the nail on the head there. In theory, Democracy should be all about accountability: prove you did a good job or get kicked out. Instead what we see (especially in young democracies) is that corruption is still there, but in a slightly different form than before.
Honestly, I don't think democracy is the be-all end-all of governance. A very good step in the right direction for China might be to find a way to hold their officials accountable to the people in some way.
My second thought: this is pure psychology. Rating your pepper spray in scovilles doesn't have nearly the psychological impact as "Our police use a new pepper spray made from the hottest pepper known to man!"
National security is an excuse used when a government does something illegal and doesn't want anyone to know.
You make it sound as if national security is a farce and all classified material is a matter of cover-ups. Might I post a big, fat: [citation needed] after your statement?
Of course, in the end, it's impossible to know. How much actual, classified, non-incriminating information have you seen? Probably little or none. The incriminating information is what gets leaked and makes headlines.
Does the government classify damaging information? Of course it does, and WikiLeaks is a testament to getting that information out. But plenty of classified information (probably the vast majority of it, from my experience) would be deadly if released to the wrong people.
That's right -- people could die if certain information is released. That's why most of it is classified to begin with.
News outlets do it all the time. It increases anticipation and creates publicity. For example, now they get at least two front page stories on Slashdot: one for the announcement, and one for the actual release.
But in waiting they are showing that publicity is more important than getting the knowledge out, making me lose some respect for them.
Alternative explanations:
-- The delay is designed to protect themselves (but then why announce the release date?)
-- They're trying to ruffle the feathers of higher-ups in the government (their twitter account implies that it's working)
Finally, we would like to make clear that all these decisions have been driven and implemented by our executives in the United States, and that none of our employees in China can, or should, be held responsible for them. Despite all the uncertainty and difficulties they have faced since we made our announcement in January, they have continued to focus on serving our Chinese users and customers. We are immensely proud of them.
The great thing is that China has based their entire argument on the fact that 'Google must obey the law,' and if they don't, they are not upholding the harmony of the country. Now Google has found a solution that is 100% legal.
Never underestimate the power of propaganda, especially from an entity that owns the media. China doesn't care how Google is bypassing the law, and will still spin this as being illegal.
Of course the strong rule the weak. Why is that a bad thing (at least, in the programming sense)? There are many, many programmers who should have little to no voice in what patches should be applied, simply because they are weak programmers!
But that's beside the point.
What you originally described is, by definition, anarchy. There is no centralized control, nobody to make decisions on what happens in general.
Within your own fork, you have free reign. This is totalitarianism within your fork. You apply whatever patches you see appropriate, and nothing else. Maybe you are "benevolent" and allow write access to your repository, but you still have the controlling voice whenever you want to exercise it.
The brilliance behind FOSS is that anarchy and totalitarianism can actually strike a balance that feels a lot like democracy: individuals have enough of a voice (by having the capability to fork) that the totalitarians are kept in check.
In theory, I agree -- it probably has the better security model. But for now, it doesn't really matter if Linux is more secure on paper -- obscurity makes any real security benefit hidden in the noise.
My point, in the end, is that even if Linux were insecure the effect of switching would benefit everybody. Introducing diversity into your computer population will make attacks less severe and less likely.
(reposting because I accidentally posted anonymously)
What you describe is not a democracy: it's probably closer to anarchy. A free-for-all, with nobody in any position to make any decisions.
Closer to a democracy would be Wikipedia, where the "consensus" idea is the one that prevails, even though it's a free-for-all. But the label "democracy" only works since everybody works off of the same fork and the leadership is (mostly) hands-off. Once the leadership gets involved, it's no longer a democracy.
With open-source, a single person still "owns" a fork. No matter how you try to make it fit, democracy doesn't apply when any one person/group can make the sole decision on what happens, and that leadership cannot be changed. Like it or not, almost all open-source projects have a governing body which answers only to themselves. Once the leadership gets involved in decisions, it's a dictatorship. When they're hands-off, it gives the illusion of being a democracy.
And yet, I've found that most wars have an economic foundation lurking somewhere at its core. Maybe not as a primary motivation, but a strong motivation nonetheless. That makes China's actions against Google and other US "economic interests" quite dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
DJ used nature's perfect shock absorber: a twinkie.
It didn't work.
Over-rated? The Mars Polar Lander didn't fare so well during its landing.
Granted, that was a different system, but I'm not sure an airbag system will work for something over five times heavier than Spirit or Opportunity. Landing is definitely a hard thing to do.
That movie also taught me Mini Coopers can handle much more powerful engines than you'd think. A nuclear-powered model is quite possible.
Searching around I found Apple's Cyberdog a web browser with a similar (but not nearly so pervasive) interface.
For once I'm grateful for the "extinguish" part of Microsoft's philosophy.
How long must keep bringing up such a miserable piece of junk and humiliating Microsoft?
Forever. And often. They need some humility.
We should do the same for other companies -- Apple needs some humility, too.
You (and others) have missed the point slightly.
FOSS is (generally, although not universally) free as in beer. Therefore, there is no sales tax. If someone sells you a CD with Linux on it, the sale would still be taxed under normal laws.
However, developing this software is not free. Many times, a company will want a customized feature added to a product that they already use, but don't want to develop in-house. They then pay a chunk of money to the project to have this feature developed ahead of other features.
The same thing happens in closed-source software. And this is what the law taxes, if I read it right.
There is one difference, however. In the closed-source world, there is often an agreement that these special features will not be available to the competition; a special branch is created just for that customer. For free software, the feature is available to all.
And maybe that makes all the difference.
If we, as a society, value something, taxing it is the most assured way of destroying it.
Except that taxes don't deter people like that.
The cost of cigarettes is dominated by taxes, for example, and yet people still smoke. The addiction makes then overcome the higher prices.
Nor does it work with income taxes: just because making money is taxed doesn't mean people don't want to work and have jobs.
I was looking over the proposed law and found some interesting information on this.
First, I'm not a lawyer or politician. Be ye forewarned.
Page 87 makes it seem that this isn't a new tax, but a removal of an exemption. From the document:
(7)(a) The term also includes the sale of or charge made for custom software and the customization of prewritten computer software to a consumer, regardless of the method of delivery to the consumer. (b) The term also includes the charge made to consumers for the right to access and use custom software and customized prewritten computer software, where possession of the software is maintained by the seller or a third party.
In other words, the following are taxable:
1) The sale of "custom software"
2) The amount paid to customize software that's already written
3) Licensing fees to access custom software
Back to the original question in this thread, it seems that FOSS could fall under 2) in my list -- developers are often paid to add specific features (thereby customizing the software) by individual or companies. As nothing is charged for the sale and licensing of FOSS (generally), 1 and 3 woudn't apply.
I will say, however, that "custom software" is not defined in said document.
At first I thought ... "that doesn't affect me, I run Linux" ...
But what about paying a developer to work on a FOSS application? Would that be taxed? It is custom software, after all.
Of course. Examples from personal experience:
1) Pictures (come on! who needs pictures in a sig?) ... and bold text
2) Font style and size
3) Color
Color doesn't directly mean more ink, but it still costs more money to print (color being more expensive than B&W).
I've got a better idea - move all email to Twitter: You only get 140 characters. Period. The only other thing better would be to route all e
Error: Slashdot has moved all posts to twitter. Try shortening your post.
Yeah, I really hate that, too.
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMXVGMFIa2NdXHZJZAQFe4AQAz0FZrHdH8o+zkIvcI/4ABg4gfE7cG0xE
Z2J9GVWD2zi4tG+s1+IWEY6Ae17kx925JKrzF4Ti2upAwTN2Pnb/x0G8WJQVKQzP
mZcD+XNnAaYCqFz8iIuAFVLchYeWj1Pqxxq0weGCtjQIrpzrmGxV7xXzK0jus+6V
rML3TxQSwdA=
=T9Mc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
He said that there is little demand for democracy among ordinary Chinese, but there is a huge wish for accountability.... but that democracy isn't really seen as relevant to that debate.
Your friend hit the nail on the head there. In theory, Democracy should be all about accountability: prove you did a good job or get kicked out. Instead what we see (especially in young democracies) is that corruption is still there, but in a slightly different form than before.
Honestly, I don't think democracy is the be-all end-all of governance. A very good step in the right direction for China might be to find a way to hold their officials accountable to the people in some way.
A good idea, if a way can be found.
Another thing is the lack of math history being taught.
Welcome to the most hated subject ever taught. Math and history! Each of them alone is bad enough, but you expect me to learn them together???
That was my first thought, too.
My second thought: this is pure psychology. Rating your pepper spray in scovilles doesn't have nearly the psychological impact as "Our police use a new pepper spray made from the hottest pepper known to man!"
National security is an excuse used when a government does something illegal and doesn't want anyone to know.
You make it sound as if national security is a farce and all classified material is a matter of cover-ups. Might I post a big, fat: [citation needed] after your statement?
Of course, in the end, it's impossible to know. How much actual, classified, non-incriminating information have you seen? Probably little or none. The incriminating information is what gets leaked and makes headlines.
Does the government classify damaging information? Of course it does, and WikiLeaks is a testament to getting that information out. But plenty of classified information (probably the vast majority of it, from my experience) would be deadly if released to the wrong people.
That's right -- people could die if certain information is released. That's why most of it is classified to begin with.
News outlets do it all the time. It increases anticipation and creates publicity. For example, now they get at least two front page stories on Slashdot: one for the announcement, and one for the actual release.
But in waiting they are showing that publicity is more important than getting the knowledge out, making me lose some respect for them.
Alternative explanations:
-- The delay is designed to protect themselves (but then why announce the release date?)
-- They're trying to ruffle the feathers of higher-ups in the government (their twitter account implies that it's working)
...welcome our newly upgraded martian overlord.
I have no idea if a guy in that position would pay over $7 a pop just to game with a girl, but it does have some potential.
Yeah -- playing with girls is too expensive. I play with myself instead.
[/me blushes]
Wait, wait! I mean I play solo games! Get your mind out of the gutter!
From the end of google's blog post:
Finally, we would like to make clear that all these decisions have been driven and implemented by our executives in the United States, and that none of our employees in China can, or should, be held responsible for them. Despite all the uncertainty and difficulties they have faced since we made our announcement in January, they have continued to focus on serving our Chinese users and customers. We are immensely proud of them.
The great thing is that China has based their entire argument on the fact that 'Google must obey the law,' and if they don't, they are not upholding the harmony of the country. Now Google has found a solution that is 100% legal.
Never underestimate the power of propaganda, especially from an entity that owns the media. China doesn't care how Google is bypassing the law, and will still spin this as being illegal.
Of course the strong rule the weak. Why is that a bad thing (at least, in the programming sense)? There are many, many programmers who should have little to no voice in what patches should be applied, simply because they are weak programmers!
But that's beside the point.
What you originally described is, by definition, anarchy. There is no centralized control, nobody to make decisions on what happens in general.
Within your own fork, you have free reign. This is totalitarianism within your fork. You apply whatever patches you see appropriate, and nothing else. Maybe you are "benevolent" and allow write access to your repository, but you still have the controlling voice whenever you want to exercise it.
The brilliance behind FOSS is that anarchy and totalitarianism can actually strike a balance that feels a lot like democracy: individuals have enough of a voice (by having the capability to fork) that the totalitarians are kept in check.
Irrelevant to my point.
In theory, I agree -- it probably has the better security model. But for now, it doesn't really matter if Linux is more secure on paper -- obscurity makes any real security benefit hidden in the noise.
My point, in the end, is that even if Linux were insecure the effect of switching would benefit everybody. Introducing diversity into your computer population will make attacks less severe and less likely.
(reposting because I accidentally posted anonymously)
What you describe is not a democracy: it's probably closer to anarchy. A free-for-all, with nobody in any position to make any decisions.
Closer to a democracy would be Wikipedia, where the "consensus" idea is the one that prevails, even though it's a free-for-all. But the label "democracy" only works since everybody works off of the same fork and the leadership is (mostly) hands-off. Once the leadership gets involved, it's no longer a democracy.
With open-source, a single person still "owns" a fork. No matter how you try to make it fit, democracy doesn't apply when any one person/group can make the sole decision on what happens, and that leadership cannot be changed. Like it or not, almost all open-source projects have a governing body which answers only to themselves. Once the leadership gets involved in decisions, it's a dictatorship. When they're hands-off, it gives the illusion of being a democracy.
And yet, I've found that most wars have an economic foundation lurking somewhere at its core. Maybe not as a primary motivation, but a strong motivation nonetheless. That makes China's actions against Google and other US "economic interests" quite dangerous.