What risk? The government doesn't operate with the same risk portfolio as in an individual investor. If we ignore trade, because they have the power to tax all the money is really theirs. "Risk" to them doesn't exist, if they overestimate how much money is going from Paul to Peter they can move money from Peter to Paul instantly via. taxation.
Also they can create or destroy money at will (we have a fiat system) none of the individual players can do that.
No we have cyclical unemployment, which means (excluding trade for now) that net savings is higher than net investment. Under those circumstances redirected savings to investment is exactly what you want to have the government do.
What are you talking about? If we have cyclical unemployed people, putting them to work increases output in the present. If that output is invested, then this increases future output.
Money is just a means of determining relative values for various assets. It doesn't actually mean anything, it really is just green pieces of paper the government prints.
He didn't personally check code for about 20 years and write was mostly in the 70's. But he understood technology and so he could listen to developers and grok what was the problem. He also was interested.
At least according to Apple their problems aren't technical, they can't figure out how to license this in a cost effective manner. I.E. the problem is really with Sony.
Don't know if it is true or not, but they have fairly specific in what the issues are. AFAIK the recommended solution is QuickTime to author the movie and then build the menus using a professional Hollywood system.
-- a new compiler run time model which functions best with large numbers of cores
-- a graphics model that is designed for mid-high end GPUs
-- a rapid move to 64 bit computing allowing for more ram
They are clearly pointing themselves even more directly at being a high end / high margin computer seller. The question is how much better does an Apple need to be if it is 50% more expensive for say the 30th percentile of computer users.
Small business is very different than enterprise. Microsoft is actually stronger in small business mainly because there is no little viable competition.
They faced extinction 10 years ago. Now they are rapidly growing, successful in multiple markets, face no serious structural issues which are hampering further growth, have tremendous mind share, huge goodwill.
The average consumer reads tech reviews and the content for tech reviews often come right off of macworld speeches (i.e. journalism from press releases).
This is patent not copyright. Big content would love to see the patent system tightened up. With the possible exception of drug companies and the democrats already hate them.
The tech public was openly siding with IBM. IBM could have much more effectively gathered witnesses and checked facts themselves. They are perfectly allowed to hold open meetings with the people who came forward and self deposed.
I read what he had to say. I can believe every word of his claims and consider himself unfit to do journalism. He basically says he got attacked publicly for saying really stupid stuff so he doubled down. He admits to essentially making claims based on no evidence because he was emotionally worked up.
When he got strongly attacked he owed it to his readers to double and triple check his facts. His articles from 2002-7 on the SCO claims and open source were simply stupid. Once he became a major figure he lost the right to that ignorant.
There will be many more lawsuits. For example with KDE there are substantial questions of standing to file a lawsuit against GPL violations, the kernel may have similar problems. As open source code has gotten all over the web in example which are getting "cut and pasted" there are going to be huge lawsuits about what exactly is a derived work.
Right now the legal world is quiet. Enjoy it won't last.
Gates wasn't. He was the only one at Microsoft who could keep all the divisions working together. While the company was much too large for him to control by the end, he at least could make sure the company stayed on one road for the priority projects and that everyone's vision was the same.
Jobs runs a smaller company and has much more vision so in his case the loss is far worse.
but people under estimate the mouse a lot. I've never seen any other input device that is as exact and that you can use for hours and hours without getting tired and sore.
The direction seems to be moving in the opposite way. Junior High school kids text in preference to talking. Given that an experienced typist can type way faster than they can talk intelligibly and our current keyboard designs could be sped up I wouldn't be shocked if the whole desire for voice goes away for large devices.
Even Linus won't claim that he would have been able to bring out an OS without Stallman's earlier work. Things binutils which no free programmer wanted to write where there because of Stallman. Linux got its cross platform abilities from gcc's design was all the FSF. For that matter the fact that there was a free C compiler around at all... The fact that shells like Bash existed (and were debugged).
As for the BSDs again they might have made it. In many ways they were doing what Stallman originally planned in starting an OS and not a community of software. But it is hard to know, in practice while they have done many small projects and a few large projects they have moved slower than the Linux/GPLed software did. In practice they have GPLed software in more and more places, they themselves are getting less "free" in the BSD sense. But if Linux hadn't made the GPL the standard free software license..? It is hard to go back and time and write a "what if".
I'd respond by notion you have only one issue here, he doesn't like unfree software. Note the question asked, "Do you believe notebooks like the Asus EeePC are championing the cause of the FSF?" Answer: "Not entirely...."
If the question had been, "Do you believe notebooks like the Asus EeePC are better than notebooks running all commercial software" the answer would have been "yes". Or, "are you excited about how much free software is going on many of the netbooks being distributed..."
In other words he doesn't think Asus went far enough. As for Canonical again he is against the non free packages, which has little to do with creating a desktop version of Debian.
In other words I disagree with the notion that Stallman is against the major initiatives of the last 25 years rather he is cautious about the fact that 90% free, 10% unfree can be functionally little different than 100% unfree.
Slashdot Mirror
How has Keynesian economics been proven a failure? Be specific please.
What risk? The government doesn't operate with the same risk portfolio as in an individual investor. If we ignore trade, because they have the power to tax all the money is really theirs. "Risk" to them doesn't exist, if they overestimate how much money is going from Paul to Peter they can move money from Peter to Paul instantly via. taxation.
Also they can create or destroy money at will (we have a fiat system) none of the individual players can do that.
No we have cyclical unemployment, which means (excluding trade for now) that net savings is higher than net investment. Under those circumstances redirected savings to investment is exactly what you want to have the government do.
What are you talking about? If we have cyclical unemployed people, putting them to work increases output in the present. If that output is invested, then this increases future output.
Money is just a means of determining relative values for various assets. It doesn't actually mean anything, it really is just green pieces of paper the government prints.
Great leaders can be replaced by other great leaders:
Watson after Hollerith (IBM)
Robespierre after Marat (French Revolution)
He didn't personally check code for about 20 years and write was mostly in the 70's. But he understood technology and so he could listen to developers and grok what was the problem. He also was interested.
At least according to Apple their problems aren't technical, they can't figure out how to license this in a cost effective manner. I.E. the problem is really with Sony.
Don't know if it is true or not, but they have fairly specific in what the issues are. AFAIK the recommended solution is QuickTime to author the movie and then build the menus using a professional Hollywood system.
If you look at 10.6 features:
-- a new compiler run time model which functions best with large numbers of cores
-- a graphics model that is designed for mid-high end GPUs
-- a rapid move to 64 bit computing allowing for more ram
They are clearly pointing themselves even more directly at being a high end / high margin computer seller. The question is how much better does an Apple need to be if it is 50% more expensive for say the 30th percentile of computer users.
Small business is very different than enterprise. Microsoft is actually stronger in small business mainly because there is no little viable competition.
They faced extinction 10 years ago. Now they are rapidly growing, successful in multiple markets, face no serious structural issues which are hampering further growth, have tremendous mind share, huge goodwill.
Yeah they are in a heap of trouble.
The average consumer reads tech reviews and the content for tech reviews often come right off of macworld speeches (i.e. journalism from press releases).
I wouldn't be so sure. The democrats are strongly committed to bringing down medical costs. Far and away the easiest target is drug prices.
No, copyright patent and trademark all very different.
AC below is correct with regard to how I was using them. We aren't disagreeing on the main point.
This is patent not copyright. Big content would love to see the patent system tightened up. With the possible exception of drug companies and the democrats already hate them.
What was every ambiguous about this case? You had one side lying and making stuff up and the other trying to disprove lies.
The tech public was openly siding with IBM. IBM could have much more effectively gathered witnesses and checked facts themselves. They are perfectly allowed to hold open meetings with the people who came forward and self deposed.
An example of censorship. The long article was all opinion but had good links.
I read what he had to say. I can believe every word of his claims and consider himself unfit to do journalism. He basically says he got attacked publicly for saying really stupid stuff so he doubled down. He admits to essentially making claims based on no evidence because he was emotionally worked up.
When he got strongly attacked he owed it to his readers to double and triple check his facts. His articles from 2002-7 on the SCO claims and open source were simply stupid. Once he became a major figure he lost the right to that ignorant.
There will be many more lawsuits. For example with KDE there are substantial questions of standing to file a lawsuit against GPL violations, the kernel may have similar problems. As open source code has gotten all over the web in example which are getting "cut and pasted" there are going to be huge lawsuits about what exactly is a derived work.
Right now the legal world is quiet. Enjoy it won't last.
Gates wasn't. He was the only one at Microsoft who could keep all the divisions working together. While the company was much too large for him to control by the end, he at least could make sure the company stayed on one road for the priority projects and that everyone's vision was the same.
Jobs runs a smaller company and has much more vision so in his case the loss is far worse.
but people under estimate the mouse a lot. I've never seen any other input device that is as exact and that you can use for hours and hours without getting tired and sore.
I can think of one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trackball
The direction seems to be moving in the opposite way. Junior High school kids text in preference to talking. Given that an experienced typist can type way faster than they can talk intelligibly and our current keyboard designs could be sped up I wouldn't be shocked if the whole desire for voice goes away for large devices.
Even Linus won't claim that he would have been able to bring out an OS without Stallman's earlier work. Things binutils which no free programmer wanted to write where there because of Stallman. Linux got its cross platform abilities from gcc's design was all the FSF. For that matter the fact that there was a free C compiler around at all... The fact that shells like Bash existed (and were debugged).
As for the BSDs again they might have made it. In many ways they were doing what Stallman originally planned in starting an OS and not a community of software. But it is hard to know, in practice while they have done many small projects and a few large projects they have moved slower than the Linux/GPLed software did. In practice they have GPLed software in more and more places, they themselves are getting less "free" in the BSD sense. But if Linux hadn't made the GPL the standard free software license..? It is hard to go back and time and write a "what if".
I'd respond by notion you have only one issue here, he doesn't like unfree software. Note the question asked, "Do you believe notebooks like the Asus EeePC are championing the cause of the FSF?"
Answer: "Not entirely...."
If the question had been, "Do you believe notebooks like the Asus EeePC are better than notebooks running all commercial software" the answer would have been "yes". Or, "are you excited about how much free software is going on many of the netbooks being distributed..."
In other words he doesn't think Asus went far enough. As for Canonical again he is against the non free packages, which has little to do with creating a desktop version of Debian.
In other words I disagree with the notion that Stallman is against the major initiatives of the last 25 years rather he is cautious about the fact that 90% free, 10% unfree can be functionally little different than 100% unfree.