But seriously, re-read my post. "Not that this is a bad thing, per se." I didn't say profit was bad. I meant only that IBM is not a bleeding-heart advocate of OSS for the sake of freedom. They are entirely devoted to making money but people comment on IBM's support of Linux as if they support Linux because of some belief in the benefit to society. IBM supports it because of the belief that it can make money doing so. There's nothing noble about it.
Why is it that everyone on slashdork that complains about other people's spelling, grammar, and usage of punctuation--or lack thereof--still can't figure out how to use a goddamn apostrophe?
In 1991, we were a $64.8 billion company that got less than $6 billion from non-maintenance services. Ten short years later, the business of information technology services generated more than 40 percent of our $86 billion in sales and became the single largest source of revenue in our portfolio.
Services provide 40.7% of their revenue. Hardware provides another 38.9% and software is 15.1% of their revenue. Additionally, according to their statement, in 2001, Global Services and Software had higher margins than hardware; whereas, in 2000 their Hardware margins increased and Global Services margins decreased.
Everything else they do relates to those two things. Every time they support Linux, it is because it helps them do those two things.
IBM would not support Linux if they did not have a business model that allows them to make money in spite of Linux's free-ness.
Not that that's a bad thing, per se. I just see people talking up IBM like they are benevolent; but, they are greedy and profit-driven, just like Microsoft, Apple, Sony, RIAA, MPAA, <insert evil corporation here>, etc.
I'm all for IBM supporting Linux, but let's not forget those same people (management) would be fighting tooth and nail against it if they had the business model Microsoft has.
Seriously, where in the world is there a country whose government isn't corrupt, where individual freedoms are abundant, personal privacy is respected, people aren't viewed as criminals until *after* they commit a crime, and where you can have a decent life with some modicum of prosperity?
Here's my proposal: it should should allow artists to get paid,
1. RIAA doesn't care if the artists get paid...RIAA only cares that the production companies get paid...how the musicians fare is their problem.
and the citizens to have archived and portable copies of the recording they have purchased.
2. RIAA doesn't believe you have this right. If you want the music on more than one machine or in more than one format, buy it again.
The record companies should produce a superior audio product
3. Less than 10% of the music buying population want or care about higher quality audio...you can't tell the difference over the road noise anyway...
and get to protect it from serial copying.
4. If it can be read, it can be copied...plain and simple. Copy CONTROL (protection is a prophylactic) does not work. Music will continue to be pirated by the same percentage of listeners who pirate it today.
The CD layer should be freely available for personal copying such as to a computer or portable digital player.
5. So music production companies will actually LOWER the sound quality of this layer to something worse than cassette tapes, effectively eliminating its use.
These 2 basic concepts are a model that can be applied in the future, when better formats become available. It may also serve as a model for digital visual recordings. Perhaps we can get the artists, publishing companies, electronics manufacturers and the federal trade commision to all agree on this compromise:
6. Chances of getting all of those groups to agree is somewhere around.3%
1.The high quality recording allows only one copy of itself to be made for archival purposes.
7. So this copy will be ripped to MP3, thereby making the whole point moot. Pirates will just have MP3s of the better quality layer.
2.The lower quality recordings are available for personal copying.
8. I reiterate, RIAA does not believe in fair use. I don't think they'll ever agree to any scheme in which you can copy decent quality audio even once.
And #9, the main reason it won't work: MP3 is the new format. All the other attempts at introducing new formats are pointless. People like MP3s, MP3s are the new way. Audio players now support MP3s, car sterios are already supporting MP3s. The music industry, or RIAA, cannot change this. If they want to jump on the bandwagon, fine. If they want to push it over and knock everyone else off, they are too late.
But, as Dennis Miller might say: "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
If you do your research, you will find out that there are significant undeveloped oil prospects in the middle east (Afghanistan!... makes me wonder about the real purpose of the war on terrorism) and in the arctic above Canada.
Funny you should mention it...when just today this announcement came out. The US and our oil companies (aren't they one and the same?) have been after a pipeline through Afghanistan for a while now. Just check google for more.
I guess Canada is lucky we get along so well or we might invent a reason to start a war with them.
A bunch of Linux companies making an uber-distro so they can compete with Red Hat should not be called United Linux. To me, it sounds a lot more like Divided Linux.
Who cares about how much faster this CPU will go? It doesn't matter that the CPU will perform 10 gazillion instructions per second or whatever because the I/O bus and Memory architecture are the bottlenecks.
Until they get working implementations of a new I/O bus and a memory architecture that gets RAM bandwidth and latency up to a point where it can keep up with the CPU, this will continue to be nothing more than trivia.
I read that page closely. Since you mentioned DOM in particular, have you perused Mozilla's list of open DOM-related bugs of late. 709 open bugs specific to DOM, 57 of which are specific to "DOM Core".
This is precisely why I said we probably don't want to get into a debate over which is closer to 100% compatible. Opera IS very near 100% standards compliant. One of Opera's stated goals is to BE 100% compatible with W3C standards.
They are in the same boat as Mozilla as far as standards compliance...they both are NEAR 100% compliance, neither IS, and BOTH are more compliant than IE.
What I think is funny is listening to the DJs on ClearChannel's stations:
DJ: Up next, Britney's new one... (off air) plays song, barfs in bag, composes self DJ (back on the air): I just don't know why, but I really love that song...
No, see...they don't actually oppose payola. When there was more competition in the radio business, payola was cheaper because all the stations had to compete. Now that Clear Channel owns most of them, there's little competition, so payola costs more.
What RIAA really opposes is MORE payola. Not payola in general.
Say there is a difference, and a law passes with better definitions. This makes it such that certain regulated devices (eg., TV capture cards) must contain these "cop-chips" to disable copying of watermarked content.
But the ADC is the same chip in a digital thermometer or whatever, only with the copy control mechanism added.
What likelihood is there that a "mod-chip" industry pops up, selling replacement ADC chips that are not actually regulated (because these ADC chips are just raw chips, not copying devices) and including instructions on how to wire your new ADC onto the board of that TV capture card so that BAM! cop-chip is disabled?
I think it would be highly likely...so, given the MPAA's rabid fanaticism about content CONTROL, I think it highly likely they would push hard for the law to NOT have exemptions and only cover copying devices specifically, but to regulate EVERY ADC made/sold in the US.
1. It is the *one* browser that is nearly 100% standards compliant.
For everything you say but this, I agree. However, this would indicate Opera is very nearly 100% standards compliant as well.
I don't know if we should concern ourselves with a debate over which is closer to 100% compliant. It suffices to say there are at least *two* browsers that are nearly 100% standards compliant...and IE isn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
But seriously, re-read my post. "Not that this is a bad thing, per se." I didn't say profit was bad. I meant only that IBM is not a bleeding-heart advocate of OSS for the sake of freedom. They are entirely devoted to making money but people comment on IBM's support of Linux as if they support Linux because of some belief in the benefit to society. IBM supports it because of the belief that it can make money doing so. There's nothing noble about it.
Why is it that everyone on slashdork that complains about other people's spelling, grammar, and usage of punctuation--or lack thereof--still can't figure out how to use a goddamn apostrophe?
Hell, I went and wrote that before I came across the breakdown of profits by operating group:
Global Services: 27.5% gross profit margin
Hardware: 27.7% gross profit margin
Software: 82.5% gross profit margin
Interestingly, even though software has much higher margins, IBM makes more revenue on hardware and services so that's what they focus on.
I think we need to remember two things about IBM:
1. They sell hardware
2. They sell services
Everything else they do relates to those two things. Every time they support Linux, it is because it helps them do those two things.
IBM would not support Linux if they did not have a business model that allows them to make money in spite of Linux's free-ness.
Not that that's a bad thing, per se. I just see people talking up IBM like they are benevolent; but, they are greedy and profit-driven, just like Microsoft, Apple, Sony, RIAA, MPAA, <insert evil corporation here>, etc.
I'm all for IBM supporting Linux, but let's not forget those same people (management) would be fighting tooth and nail against it if they had the business model Microsoft has.
Linuxstein
Well, since Mel is here, why not use
telnet host 80
Yeah, but where to move to?
Seriously, where in the world is there a country whose government isn't corrupt, where individual freedoms are abundant, personal privacy is respected, people aren't viewed as criminals until *after* they commit a crime, and where you can have a decent life with some modicum of prosperity?
I'm sorry...is there some other version of slashdot I'm not aware of?
1. RIAA doesn't care if the artists get paid...RIAA only cares that the production companies get paid...how the musicians fare is their problem.2. RIAA doesn't believe you have this right. If you want the music on more than one machine or in more than one format, buy it again.3. Less than 10% of the music buying population want or care about higher quality audio...you can't tell the difference over the road noise anyway...4. If it can be read, it can be copied...plain and simple. Copy CONTROL (protection is a prophylactic) does not work. Music will continue to be pirated by the same percentage of listeners who pirate it today.5. So music production companies will actually LOWER the sound quality of this layer to something worse than cassette tapes, effectively eliminating its use.6. Chances of getting all of those groups to agree is somewhere around
And #9, the main reason it won't work: MP3 is the new format. All the other attempts at introducing new formats are pointless. People like MP3s, MP3s are the new way. Audio players now support MP3s, car sterios are already supporting MP3s. The music industry, or RIAA, cannot change this. If they want to jump on the bandwagon, fine. If they want to push it over and knock everyone else off, they are too late.
But, as Dennis Miller might say: "That's just my opinion. I could be wrong."
Funny you should mention it...when just today this announcement came out. The US and our oil companies (aren't they one and the same?) have been after a pipeline through Afghanistan for a while now. Just check google for more.
I guess Canada is lucky we get along so well or we might invent a reason to start a war with them.
Because many people believe the adage: "You get what you pay for.."
Which unfortunately means a lot of people believe that if something is free, it must be worthless.
Karma: 50
Moderation Totals: Funny=1, Overrated=1, Total=2.
Result: 49
I love slashdot.
I'm sorry. I thought this was slashdot...
A bunch of Linux companies making an uber-distro so they can compete with Red Hat should not be called United Linux. To me, it sounds a lot more like Divided Linux.
Who cares about how much faster this CPU will go? It doesn't matter that the CPU will perform 10 gazillion instructions per second or whatever because the I/O bus and Memory architecture are the bottlenecks.
Until they get working implementations of a new I/O bus and a memory architecture that gets RAM bandwidth and latency up to a point where it can keep up with the CPU, this will continue to be nothing more than trivia.
I'll second that. I took the RHCE test. LPI is something I may do some day, but RHCE is more applicable now.
<troll>
Besides, any business with any degree of intelligence at all will (when determining which Linux distro to implement) choose Red Hat.
</troll>
I read that page closely. Since you mentioned DOM in particular, have you perused Mozilla's list of open DOM-related bugs of late. 709 open bugs specific to DOM, 57 of which are specific to "DOM Core".
This is precisely why I said we probably don't want to get into a debate over which is closer to 100% compatible. Opera IS very near 100% standards compliant. One of Opera's stated goals is to BE 100% compatible with W3C standards.
They are in the same boat as Mozilla as far as standards compliance...they both are NEAR 100% compliance, neither IS, and BOTH are more compliant than IE.
What I think is funny is listening to the DJs on ClearChannel's stations:
DJ: Up next, Britney's new one...
(off air) plays song, barfs in bag, composes self
DJ (back on the air): I just don't know why, but I really love that song...
No, see...they don't actually oppose payola. When there was more competition in the radio business, payola was cheaper because all the stations had to compete. Now that Clear Channel owns most of them, there's little competition, so payola costs more.
What RIAA really opposes is MORE payola. Not payola in general.
What? So now the RIAA actually *cares* about the artists?
Now I'm confused.
The legit ones will get/buy a new license.
Okay, hypothetical:
Say there is a difference, and a law passes with better definitions. This makes it such that certain regulated devices (eg., TV capture cards) must contain these "cop-chips" to disable copying of watermarked content.
But the ADC is the same chip in a digital thermometer or whatever, only with the copy control mechanism added.
What likelihood is there that a "mod-chip" industry pops up, selling replacement ADC chips that are not actually regulated (because these ADC chips are just raw chips, not copying devices) and including instructions on how to wire your new ADC onto the board of that TV capture card so that BAM! cop-chip is disabled?
I think it would be highly likely...so, given the MPAA's rabid fanaticism about content CONTROL, I think it highly likely they would push hard for the law to NOT have exemptions and only cover copying devices specifically, but to regulate EVERY ADC made/sold in the US.
And given that customs will soon be allowed to open all international mail without a warrant buying those ADCs from overseas gets a little more touchy.
Or just turn of referrer support. I haven't used Mozilla since 0.97, but I thought it supported disabling referrer logging.
I know in Opera I can just press F12, then hit the F key to toggle referrer support on|off.
For everything you say but this, I agree. However, this would indicate Opera is very nearly 100% standards compliant as well.
I don't know if we should concern ourselves with a debate over which is closer to 100% compliant. It suffices to say there are at least *two* browsers that are nearly 100% standards compliant...and IE isn't one of them.