I don't have time to prove this for all integers (that involves mathematical induction and is left as an exercise for the reader), but here's a real informal proof of the statement "5 is a real number."
Real numbers form a group under * (multiplication) (yeah, they form a field, too, but I don't need THAT much ammunition). Since they are a group under *, if A and B are real numbers, then A*B is a real number. If we say B=A, then A*A is a real number. I think we'd all agree that SQRT(5) is a real number, so let A=SQRT(5). So SQRT(5)*SQRT(5) is a real number, implying that 5 is a real number. QED
Re:Errgggh!! I'm so tired...
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 2
When you say a statement is wrong, you imply that there's a correct one, that there is some authoritative basis on which you can say "It's wrong." Saying "A new millenium begins on 1 Januiary 2000" is not not like saying "Carbon's atomic number is 42." While there is an obvious physical basis for days and years, there is no physical basis for centuries and millenia. (Except for the fact that we have ten digits on our hands.) Calendars are a matter of human consensus - you have to look to a human authority.
I'm not aware of any legal authority that states when the millenium begins.It would be perfectly legal and reasonable for Congress to legislate that centuries begin on January 1, xx00. The 250+ million people in this country would then abide by that convention. If you think that's a silly example, then I'd ask you how many people would have to agree on a calendar before it became "right". There have been many peoples through out history who observed different calendars, and there are numerous extant calendars now. So, for example, would you say that Jews who observe the Jewish calendar wrong to believe that the third millenium won't begin on 1 January 2001? Why or why not?
I'll grant that according to the commonly accepted calendar in the US and most of the Western world, the 3rd millenium begins on 1 January 2001. But I've got to ask, "Third millenium since when?" Not the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; the date and year of his birth are impossible to specify without supernatural knowledge. The calendar itself was adopted hundreds of years after 0001. It's been changed a number of times - you'd be very hard pressed to say how many years and days it's been since, say, November 19, 500. There are whole strings of years and days that have been skipped or never observed.
So if a whole group of people choose to believe that a new millenium begins on 1 January 2000, just party with them, and be sure to invite them to your party on 1 January 2001. Personally, I will continue to believe that every day begins a new millenium, and I'll party accordingly.
I light a splint, start the microwave, and watch for a few seconds. Nothing's happening, I'm skeptical and then (wait for it...)
BZOWN! BZOIN!
Two yellow flashes of...something. My adrenal glands kick into overdrive and I reflexively hit the Clear button. The splint still burns in the darkness of the microwave, so I nuke it again. Same thing! Too cool.
I'm not sure I buy the explanation that I'm seeing a plasma discharge - got a scientific reference on this?
1. Software alone doesn't does nothing that could affect a patient. It generally has to be embedded in some sort of mechanical device. Whoever makes that device would get sued.
2. Making source code freely available doesn't mean disclaiming liability for it. I can easily say "Here's the source, look at it fix it, DON'T YOU DARE DISTRIBUTE IT!" Releasing source code and permitting licensees to examine and modify it for their own use has NOTHING to do with ESR's version of "Open Source" software or RMS's vision of "free" software.
3. If you want a guarantee, be prepared to pay huge sums of money for it.
(offtopic rant...) 4. What is up with wanting to harm someone who bears you no malice and who, with your consent, tries to help you?
For one time in my life, I want to thump the techie types for not letting the marketing and management types have their way. Any marketeer with 0.5 brains would have said "A rocking good hit, a great brand name (tm), an installed base of hard core fans...sequel NOW!"
How hard could it have been to produce an evolutionary series of add-ons that used the original engine? With Hellfire, Blizzard demonstrated their ability to farm out the graphic and data entry work to some other group, rake in a percentage, and keep at the REAL work of producing Diablo II. Why didn't they keep it up?
Diablo was GREAT, but there was room for minor improvements in gameplay. Hellfire fixed some of those, but had limitations of its own. In the years since Diablo/Hellfire came out, I, and doubtless legions of others, would have paid good money for some good add-ons - additional levels, classes, quests, unique items, whatever - that used the original engine. All of this could have been produced by groups independent of those developing Diablo II.
But NO! The #^@(!%& PURISTS at Blizzard won't let us have any more fun with a new game until they're done with a new engine! I think that's great and all, but I also can't help thinking that MAYBE the new game would have come out sooner had there been more money to finance more bodies to work on the new game - money that could have come from a steady series of add-ons for the original game. 'Nuff said. Rant over.
in fact ONLY federal cases may be appealed to the supreme court. I don't believe this is correct. issues not resolved at the highest level of state courts can go to the supreme court.
...when it should be the lawyers you have in your sights...
Last I checked, lawyers merely study and use existing law - they don't make the laws themselves. The ones who should be in your metaphorical sights are the legislators. Not that they're creative enough to craft the sort of insanity we're discussing here; rather, they accept the influence of corporate lobbyists.
I refuse to vote for any candidate who has accepted contributions from anyone other than non-corporate constituents. So far, I haven't been able to vote...
Let me quote the relevant bit here... The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety In other words, it is the responsibility of the defender to see to it that the hospital does not become a militaryt target. Hospitals are not given blanket protection; otherwise, every combat unit could becalled a "medical unit" and be protected by this treaty.
If you place a garrison of armed troops in your hospital, then I am justified in using whatever force is neessary to destroy those troops. If the hospital is destroyed in the process, that's too bad, but my attack on the hospital does not necessarily violate the Geneva Conventions. Which the United States is not a signatory to, by the way, though it has agreed to abide by them.
So if you use a power plant to power your military installations, that power plant is a valid military target. If your hospital is powered by the same plant, then you didn't plan very well, because you situated you medical establishments and units in such a manner that attacks against military objectives CAN imperil their safety.
I found this right after my previous post; it's the paragraph where Judge J says MS has a monopoly; it appears to support what I thought
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market. (emphasis added)
I'll bet that you and the govt are working out of different dictionaries. The meaning of the word "monopoly" (at least in my mind) means total control over an industry - in this case, the operating system industry. However, in legal circles (as in every field of endeavour, from mathematics to science to economics), words often take on precise, technical definitions which do not always coincide with their "popular" definitions. I believe that this is the case of "monopoly." I once read (ie, IANAL) that a company is legally considered to have a monopoly if they can raise the price of their product without substantially altering the demand for it. By this definition, MS DEFINITELY has a monopoly.
Break MS into companies that sell: (examples are not all-inclusive): - Consumer OS products (DOS, Win 9x, IE) - Server OS products (NT, IIS, SMS - Consumer apps (Encarta, Works, games) - Business apps (Office) - App development tools (VB, VC++, VJ++)
Require MS to do all the following before releasing ANY new product: - Create an IE-free version of Windows 9x and offer all currently-licensed users of Win 9x a NO-COST (not even shipping or handling charges) upgrade to this software. - Publish all APIs. Require six months advance notice of changes to the API. - Make Windows source code available to all who request it. I don't mean "freeing" Windows, or making it open source. I just want to be sure that MS can't fudge the info they release on APIs. Also, it'd be kind of fun to recompile the kernel on the fly and see what happens.:) - Make all information related each MS software product freely available to registered users of that product. (No more charging for TechNet or MSDN.) - Renegotiate all current agreements with OEMs to preload MS software.
And while they're at it, the following would be nice: - Require that MS support its own software - no more forcing this support on OEMs and outsourcers. - Make paranoid security settings the default, out-of-box behavior for all MS products. - Charge Bill Gates with perjury. Charge Microsoft with perjury.
People who whine that the GPL restricts "their" rights are totally missing the point. The GPL restricts no one's rights. Not the developer, not the user, not the public at large.
US copyright law says that the creator of a work has TOTAL control over it. To start with, no one can make copies of my work without my permission. By default, users do not even have the right to download my binaries. By default, developers do not even have the right to download my source code. Proprietary software grants you the right to the former. Open source (define this by context, OK?) grants you the right to the latter.
Another right that is reserved to the creator is the right to create derivative works. The GPL goes one step further, in that it permits derivative works to be created. Anyone can download my software and modify it. However, I place restrictions on that right. I say that if you create something with my software, you must use it as I see fit.
As far as I can see it, the GPL is much more generous than default copyright laws or typical proprietary licenses.
But then there's the issue of freedom; after all, that's why RMS created the GPL, right? Why did he not simply release his code into the public domain? Why did he maintain his copyright and license it the way he did? If I hear one more whine or complaint about this, I think I might have to hurt someone (perhaps a cacodemon). RMS and the FSF can their works anything any way they please. You and I can license our works anyway we please. Someone grants you more rights than you had before, and you go complaining "NO! I WANT MORE!" What's up with that?
I have considered the phrase "liberated software", but it has somewhat revolutionary or criminal connotations ("Yeah, I 'liberated' that copy of Tomb Raider from Wal-mart"). I also like the fact that "freed" rhymes with "greed".
"Freed software" is how I'll think of it from now on...
The marketroids at Dell doubtless understand this phenomenon better than either of us and would price the machines accordingly. The profit margin on Linux-based machine would doubtless be greater, and they'd be doing their best to sell those rather than the Windows. In the situation you hypothesize, I would think they'd charge slightly more for the Linux-based machine while touting its improved reliability. Or, if the phenomenon is not really that strong, they might go ahead and charge only slightly less for the Linux-based box.
1) I thought OEMs typically pay a large up-front cost for unlimited license to redistribute MS's software. This was outlawed by the consent decree that MS signed in 1994 (or thereabouts). The "large up-front fee" was dependent on the number of machines shipped, with the result that you describe. Shipping PCs that don't run Windows actually costs them because they don't save any money in licensing, and have to retool their factories. Exactly. There was a disincentive for PC OEMs to ship other OSs. The US courts felt that MS was illegally taking advantage of its market share. PC OEMs now pay license fees based on the total number of boxes shipped within each of the OEM's product lines, rather than the overall total number of boxes shipped by the OEM. When a product line is first created, a lot of decisions are made regarding the hardware and software involved in that product line. Apparently it has now become profitable to consider NOT using Windows. The consent decree seems to have worked.
2) Norton Ghost can back up an entire system installation in a hidden partition. Some OEMs use this feature when a user really screws up their system: run this magic utility and your system will be just like it was when you bought it. True. But it doesn't restore your system to the state it was in before the crash - all the customizations and tweaks and extra software you installed is GONE. OEMs would also have to pay a license fee to Norton to use the Ghost software.
My thought was to simply use some sort of auto-install software on a bootable CD that would reload the system partition. You limit the configuration changes the user can make to those that can be stored in the config partition. You don't let the user install any additional software. You sell the machine as what it is, an internet appliance, since most people don't want the infinite configurability and customization of current PCs. (Note - don't confuse "most people" with "most people who now own PCs").
This is incredible and I wonder why I didn't see it coming sooner. It makes perfect sense for PC OEMs, in this era of shrinking profit margins, to do all they can to eliminate costs. If the consumer wants a only a simple word processor and web access with email, why do you need a huge OS? Why incur a hundred-dollar cost*? Why not use a $$$-free OS? And while you're at it, why not make it easy to restore the system to the original configuration without destroying user data?
From the article, it appears that MS is trying to develop a similar solution, but here's where the backlash kicks in. (I am so tickled I am laughing as I write this). Microsoft is known for their predatory pricing practices and their bullying behavior. If you've been burned by them before (and EVERY PC OEM has), and if you don't have to deal with them, why bother? I suppose Microsoft could, say something like "If you ship those Browser PCs without an MS OS, we will increase your MS license fees." That would be corporate suicide, given MS's current legal situation.
I have no idea how this will be implemented, but here's how I would do it. Create a "system" partition to contain the OS and software, a swap partition, a config partition, and a data partition. Only give the user access to the data partition. Store application configuration information on the config partition. If the OS dies for any reason, boot to the special CD that ships with the PC, and the "system" partition will be wiped and reloaded. On the software side, it would be virtually maintenance free, and user data would not be wiped out if you had to delete the system partition.
*Those familiar with MS licensing practices surely realize that PC OEMs are not charged the retail price of ~$100 for each copy of Windows they load. However, when considering the cost of Windows, you'd be a moron to leave support costs out of the equation.
an attitude like that seems almost refreshing. Not just refreshing, but quite frankly, justified. The US and Russia are complicit in any fraud that comes about. We're talking about a little island whose only resource is fossilized birdie doo. If they were really a problem, they'd lose their independence in a second. Frowning and saying "How awful, someone should do something" is TOTALLy unconvincing when you could end the problem within 24 hours. Given that the world super-powers don't really care, I don't think it's anyone else's concern.
On a similar note, I don't think it's that different from a state deciding they'll make it cheap and easy to form a corporation, or that they won't charge income tax. Suddenly, all the other states begin losing income as businesses flock to the finance-friendly states.
Any action in the United States requires that it pass both the House and the Senate...
From the linked article: "The Senate in August approved a similar bill..."
...then it must be signed by the Executive. I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of/. readers who would be affected by this bill (ie US citizens) have already completed their 8th-grade civics course and understand the situation.
The House cannot "ban" anything. Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point...
That's actually a very good idea. I don't think IT jobs will go away in the future, but 20 years from now, biotech will be the place to be; the time to get there is NOW.
You realize, of course, that Rob's entire moderation system could easily be patented and marketed out the yin-yang to boards all over the internet. "Stay good, Rob!"
Currently almost all digital signatures (and by extension, crypto in general) are based on the fact that large prime numbers are currently difficult to factor.
Currently almost all ink signatures (and by extension legal documents in general) are based on the fact that signatures are currently difficult to duplicate.
I would trust a digital signature FAR more than a "real" signature. I can train a plotter to duplicate your "real" signature in under an hour.
If Windows went open, you may see 5-10 _serious_ developers trying to fix it, but not many more than that.
You've underestimated this by a couple of orders fo magnitude. There's probably at least 10 times this many I would estimate 500-1000 _serious_ developers, and I think that's a low-ball estimate. To start with, every Windows developer out there has run into at many of the unresolved bugs in the MS Knowledge Base. All of them have at least one pet peeve. Remember, these are people who code for a living. I can't imagine that they wouldn't, in their spare time, start to look over the source and find the bit that's bugging them.
Granted, a lot of Windows developers out there are Visual Basic programmers, and VB is not initially conducive to a deep understanding of the Win32 API. However, those who've been doing VB for a living for a couple of years realize that VB makes doing 95% what you want Real Easy (tm). The other 5% would be hard regardless of the language; this forces you to either forego functionality and code pure VB (wimps!) or delve into the API and C/C++.
I think the fact of the matter is that if MS went whole hog and said "All extant MS software is now licensed under the GPL - here's the source", there'd be some serious work going on. Windows could probably even be improved beyond the level of Linux. HOWEVER, this is not real likely to happen, first because MS is NOT going to liberate Windows, and second because the closed-source mentality has pervaded the MS development community. I don't think most MS developers would be inclined to share their fixes with the world, and the MS development community is large enough that I don't think the GPL could realistically be enforced.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have time to prove this for all integers (that involves mathematical induction and is left as an exercise for the reader), but here's a real informal proof of the statement "5 is a real number."
Real numbers form a group under * (multiplication) (yeah, they form a field, too, but I don't need THAT much ammunition).
Since they are a group under *, if A and B are real numbers, then A*B is a real number.
If we say B=A, then A*A is a real number.
I think we'd all agree that SQRT(5) is a real number, so let A=SQRT(5).
So SQRT(5)*SQRT(5) is a real number, implying that 5 is a real number. QED
When you say a statement is wrong, you imply that there's a correct one, that there is some authoritative basis on which you can say "It's wrong." Saying "A new millenium begins on 1 Januiary 2000" is not not like saying "Carbon's atomic number is 42." While there is an obvious physical basis for days and years, there is no physical basis for centuries and millenia. (Except for the fact that we have ten digits on our hands.) Calendars are a matter of human consensus - you have to look to a human authority.
I'm not aware of any legal authority that states when the millenium begins.It would be perfectly legal and reasonable for Congress to legislate that centuries begin on January 1, xx00. The 250+ million people in this country would then abide by that convention. If you think that's a silly example, then I'd ask you how many people would have to agree on a calendar before it became "right". There have been many peoples through out history who observed different calendars, and there are numerous extant calendars now. So, for example, would you say that Jews who observe the Jewish calendar wrong to believe that the third millenium won't begin on 1 January 2001? Why or why not?
I'll grant that according to the commonly accepted calendar in the US and most of the Western world, the 3rd millenium begins on 1 January 2001. But I've got to ask, "Third millenium since when?" Not the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; the date and year of his birth are impossible to specify without supernatural knowledge. The calendar itself was adopted hundreds of years after 0001. It's been changed a number of times - you'd be very hard pressed to say how many years and days it's been since, say, November 19, 500. There are whole strings of years and days that have been skipped or never observed.
So if a whole group of people choose to believe that a new millenium begins on 1 January 2000, just party with them, and be sure to invite them to your party on 1 January 2001. Personally, I will continue to believe that every day begins a new millenium, and I'll party accordingly.
Exactly. When observing a transit, you get an effect much more like an annular eclipse than a total eclipse.
THIS IS SO COOL!
I light a splint, start the microwave, and watch for a few seconds. Nothing's happening, I'm skeptical and then (wait for it...)
BZOWN! BZOIN!
Two yellow flashes of...something. My adrenal glands kick into overdrive and I reflexively hit the Clear button. The splint still burns in the darkness of the microwave, so I nuke it again. Same thing! Too cool.
I'm not sure I buy the explanation that I'm seeing a plasma discharge - got a scientific reference on this?
Some things to consider...
...)
1. Software alone doesn't does nothing that could affect a patient. It generally has to be embedded in some sort of mechanical device. Whoever makes that device would get sued.
2. Making source code freely available doesn't mean disclaiming liability for it. I can easily say "Here's the source, look at it fix it, DON'T YOU DARE DISTRIBUTE IT!" Releasing source code and permitting licensees to examine and modify it for their own use has NOTHING to do with ESR's version of "Open Source" software or RMS's vision of "free" software.
3. If you want a guarantee, be prepared to pay huge sums of money for it.
(offtopic rant
4. What is up with wanting to harm someone who bears you no malice and who, with your consent, tries to help you?
John Carmack is from Kansas City...tarnation, I guess y'all had to import the talent to make that thar comp'ny.
(inhalation) AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
For one time in my life, I want to thump the techie types for not letting the marketing and management types have their way. Any marketeer with 0.5 brains would have said "A rocking good hit, a great brand name (tm), an installed base of hard core fans...sequel NOW!"
How hard could it have been to produce an evolutionary series of add-ons that used the original engine? With Hellfire, Blizzard demonstrated their ability to farm out the graphic and data entry work to some other group, rake in a percentage, and keep at the REAL work of producing Diablo II. Why didn't they keep it up?
Diablo was GREAT, but there was room for minor improvements in gameplay. Hellfire fixed some of those, but had limitations of its own. In the years since Diablo/Hellfire came out, I, and doubtless legions of others, would have paid good money for some good add-ons - additional levels, classes, quests, unique items, whatever - that used the original engine. All of this could have been produced by groups independent of those developing Diablo II.
But NO! The #^@(!%& PURISTS at Blizzard won't let us have any more fun with a new game until they're done with a new engine! I think that's great and all, but I also can't help thinking that MAYBE the new game would have come out sooner had there been more money to finance more bodies to work on the new game - money that could have come from a steady series of add-ons for the original game. 'Nuff said. Rant over.
in fact ONLY federal cases may be appealed to the supreme court.
I don't believe this is correct. issues not resolved at the highest level of state courts can go to the supreme court.
...when it should be the lawyers you have in your sights...
Last I checked, lawyers merely study and use existing law - they don't make the laws themselves. The ones who should be in your metaphorical sights are the legislators. Not that they're creative enough to craft the sort of insanity we're discussing here; rather, they accept the influence of corporate lobbyists.
I refuse to vote for any candidate who has accepted contributions from anyone other than non-corporate constituents. So far, I haven't been able to vote...
Let me quote the relevant bit here...
The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety
In other words, it is the responsibility of the defender to see to it that the hospital does not become a militaryt target. Hospitals are not given blanket protection; otherwise, every combat unit could becalled a "medical unit" and be protected by this treaty.
If you place a garrison of armed troops in your hospital, then I am justified in using whatever force is neessary to destroy those troops. If the hospital is destroyed in the process, that's too bad, but my attack on the hospital does not necessarily violate the Geneva Conventions. Which the United States is not a signatory to, by the way, though it has agreed to abide by them.
So if you use a power plant to power your military installations, that power plant is a valid military target. If your hospital is powered by the same plant, then you didn't plan very well, because you situated you medical establishments and units in such a manner that attacks against military objectives CAN imperil their safety.
Feel free to point out factual errors...
I found this right after my previous post; it's the paragraph where Judge J says MS has a monopoly; it appears to support what I thought
33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.
(emphasis added)
I'll bet that you and the govt are working out of different dictionaries. The meaning of the word "monopoly" (at least in my mind) means total control over an industry - in this case, the operating system industry. However, in legal circles (as in every field of endeavour, from mathematics to science to economics), words often take on precise, technical definitions which do not always coincide with their "popular" definitions. I believe that this is the case of "monopoly." I once read (ie, IANAL) that a company is legally considered to have a monopoly if they can raise the price of their product without substantially altering the demand for it. By this definition, MS DEFINITELY has a monopoly.
Break MS into companies that sell: (examples are not all-inclusive):
:)
- Consumer OS products (DOS, Win 9x, IE)
- Server OS products (NT, IIS, SMS
- Consumer apps (Encarta, Works, games)
- Business apps (Office)
- App development tools (VB, VC++, VJ++)
Require MS to do all the following before releasing ANY new product:
- Create an IE-free version of Windows 9x and offer all currently-licensed users of Win 9x a NO-COST (not even shipping or handling charges) upgrade to this software.
- Publish all APIs. Require six months advance notice of changes to the API.
- Make Windows source code available to all who request it. I don't mean "freeing" Windows, or making it open source. I just want to be sure that MS can't fudge the info they release on APIs. Also, it'd be kind of fun to recompile the kernel on the fly and see what happens.
- Make all information related each MS software product freely available to registered users of that product. (No more charging for TechNet or MSDN.)
- Renegotiate all current agreements with OEMs to preload MS software.
And while they're at it, the following would be nice:
- Require that MS support its own software - no more forcing this support on OEMs and outsourcers.
- Make paranoid security settings the default, out-of-box behavior for all MS products.
- Charge Bill Gates with perjury. Charge Microsoft with perjury.
People who whine that the GPL restricts "their" rights are totally missing the point. The GPL restricts no one's rights. Not the developer, not the user, not the public at large.
US copyright law says that the creator of a work has TOTAL control over it. To start with, no one can make copies of my work without my permission. By default, users do not even have the right to download my binaries. By default, developers do not even have the right to download my source code. Proprietary software grants you the right to the former. Open source (define this by context, OK?) grants you the right to the latter.
Another right that is reserved to the creator is the right to create derivative works. The GPL goes one step further, in that it permits derivative works to be created. Anyone can download my software and modify it. However, I place restrictions on that right. I say that if you create something with my software, you must use it as I see fit.
As far as I can see it, the GPL is much more generous than default copyright laws or typical proprietary licenses.
But then there's the issue of freedom; after all, that's why RMS created the GPL, right? Why did he not simply release his code into the public domain? Why did he maintain his copyright and license it the way he did? If I hear one more whine or complaint about this, I think I might have to hurt someone (perhaps a cacodemon). RMS and the FSF can their works anything any way they please. You and I can license our works anyway we please. Someone grants you more rights than you had before, and you go complaining "NO! I WANT MORE!" What's up with that?
I have considered the phrase "liberated software", but it has somewhat revolutionary or criminal connotations ("Yeah, I 'liberated' that copy of Tomb Raider from Wal-mart"). I also like the fact that "freed" rhymes with "greed".
"Freed software" is how I'll think of it from now on...
The marketroids at Dell doubtless understand this phenomenon better than either of us and would price the machines accordingly. The profit margin on Linux-based machine would doubtless be greater, and they'd be doing their best to sell those rather than the Windows. In the situation you hypothesize, I would think they'd charge slightly more for the Linux-based machine while touting its improved reliability. Or, if the phenomenon is not really that strong, they might go ahead and charge only slightly less for the Linux-based box.
1) I thought OEMs typically pay a large up-front cost for unlimited license to redistribute MS's software.
This was outlawed by the consent decree that MS signed in 1994 (or thereabouts). The "large up-front fee" was dependent on the number of machines shipped, with the result that you describe.
Shipping PCs that don't run Windows actually costs them because they don't save any money in licensing, and have to retool their factories.
Exactly. There was a disincentive for PC OEMs to ship other OSs. The US courts felt that MS was illegally taking advantage of its market share. PC OEMs now pay license fees based on the total number of boxes shipped within each of the OEM's product lines, rather than the overall total number of boxes shipped by the OEM. When a product line is first created, a lot of decisions are made regarding the hardware and software involved in that product line. Apparently it has now become profitable to consider NOT using Windows. The consent decree seems to have worked.
2) Norton Ghost can back up an entire system installation in a hidden partition. Some OEMs use this feature when a user really screws up their system: run this magic utility and your system will be just like it was when you bought it.
True. But it doesn't restore your system to the state it was in before the crash - all the customizations and tweaks and extra software you installed is GONE. OEMs would also have to pay a license fee to Norton to use the Ghost software.
My thought was to simply use some sort of auto-install software on a bootable CD that would reload the system partition. You limit the configuration changes the user can make to those that can be stored in the config partition. You don't let the user install any additional software. You sell the machine as what it is, an internet appliance, since most people don't want the infinite configurability and customization of current PCs. (Note - don't confuse "most people" with "most people who now own PCs").
This is incredible and I wonder why I didn't see it coming sooner. It makes perfect sense for PC OEMs, in this era of shrinking profit margins, to do all they can to eliminate costs. If the consumer wants a only a simple word processor and web access with email, why do you need a huge OS? Why incur a hundred-dollar cost*? Why not use a $$$-free OS? And while you're at it, why not make it easy to restore the system to the original configuration without destroying user data?
From the article, it appears that MS is trying to develop a similar solution, but here's where the backlash kicks in. (I am so tickled I am laughing as I write this). Microsoft is known for their predatory pricing practices and their bullying behavior. If you've been burned by them before (and EVERY PC OEM has), and if you don't have to deal with them, why bother? I suppose Microsoft could, say something like "If you ship those Browser PCs without an MS OS, we will increase your MS license fees." That would be corporate suicide, given MS's current legal situation.
I have no idea how this will be implemented, but here's how I would do it. Create a "system" partition to contain the OS and software, a swap partition, a config partition, and a data partition. Only give the user access to the data partition. Store application configuration information on the config partition. If the OS dies for any reason, boot to the special CD that ships with the PC, and the "system" partition will be wiped and reloaded. On the software side, it would be virtually maintenance free, and user data would not be wiped out if you had to delete the system partition.
*Those familiar with MS licensing practices surely realize that PC OEMs are not charged the retail price of ~$100 for each copy of Windows they load. However, when considering the cost of Windows, you'd be a moron to leave support costs out of the equation.
an attitude like that seems almost refreshing. Not just refreshing, but quite frankly, justified. The US and Russia are complicit in any fraud that comes about. We're talking about a little island whose only resource is fossilized birdie doo. If they were really a problem, they'd lose their independence in a second. Frowning and saying "How awful, someone should do something" is TOTALLy unconvincing when you could end the problem within 24 hours. Given that the world super-powers don't really care, I don't think it's anyone else's concern.
On a similar note, I don't think it's that different from a state deciding they'll make it cheap and easy to form a corporation, or that they won't charge income tax. Suddenly, all the other states begin losing income as businesses flock to the finance-friendly states.
Any action in the United States requires that it pass both the House and the Senate...
...then it must be signed by the Executive. /. readers who would be affected by this bill (ie US citizens) have already completed their 8th-grade civics course and understand the situation.
From the linked article: "The Senate in August approved a similar bill..."
I think that it's safe for Hemos to assume that the vast majority of
The House cannot "ban" anything.
Au contrair. Spending measures must originate in the House. The House thus has the explicit power to ban specific instances government spending or taxation by not passing the bills that would make it possible. In practice, this is a moot point...
That's actually a very good idea. I don't think IT jobs will go away in the future, but 20 years from now, biotech will be the place to be; the time to get there is NOW.
You realize, of course, that Rob's entire moderation system could easily be patented and marketed out the yin-yang to boards all over the internet. "Stay good, Rob!"
Currently almost all digital signatures (and by extension, crypto in general) are based on the fact that large prime numbers are currently difficult to factor.
Currently almost all ink signatures (and by extension legal documents in general) are based on the fact that signatures are currently difficult to duplicate.
I would trust a digital signature FAR more than a "real" signature. I can train a plotter to duplicate your "real" signature in under an hour.
Xenix did.
If Windows went open, you may see 5-10 _serious_ developers trying to fix it, but not many more than that.
You've underestimated this by a couple of orders fo magnitude. There's probably at least 10 times this many I would estimate 500-1000 _serious_ developers, and I think that's a low-ball estimate. To start with, every Windows developer out there has run into at many of the unresolved bugs in the MS Knowledge Base. All of them have at least one pet peeve. Remember, these are people who code for a living. I can't imagine that they wouldn't, in their spare time, start to look over the source and find the bit that's bugging them.
Granted, a lot of Windows developers out there are Visual Basic programmers, and VB is not initially conducive to a deep understanding of the Win32 API. However, those who've been doing VB for a living for a couple of years realize that VB makes doing 95% what you want Real Easy (tm). The other 5% would be hard regardless of the language; this forces you to either forego functionality and code pure VB (wimps!) or delve into the API and C/C++.
I think the fact of the matter is that if MS went whole hog and said "All extant MS software is now licensed under the GPL - here's the source", there'd be some serious work going on. Windows could probably even be improved beyond the level of Linux. HOWEVER, this is not real likely to happen, first because MS is NOT going to liberate Windows, and second because the closed-source mentality has pervaded the MS development community. I don't think most MS developers would be inclined to share their fixes with the world, and the MS development community is large enough that I don't think the GPL could realistically be enforced.