You do not correctly understand the difference between closed source and open source.
The problem here is that there are two differences between closed and open source, and you have focused on one while I focused on the other.
It is true that the defining detail of open source is that anyone (willing to accept the GPL or BSD or Mozilla or other licencing) may alter the code... but (as a general rule, and specifically SCO UnixWare) the source code is declared a 'trade secret' and kept behind locked doors (and/or NDAs). So tell me, when closed source programs are 'trade secret' and not open to public scrutiny, while open source ones are available for any party to examine, who is likely to be unable to find infringement?
IOW, I see SCO as generally saying, "Linux programmers, remove our Magical Mystery Code (which you are forbidden from seeing) from your system with your super psychic powers or face our wrath!"
have one final proposal for the closet socialists and fascists of the **AA: lobby against budget deficits, pork barrel spending and the peacetime income tax if you want more money.
I see two problems with that suggestion that would prevent it from being implemented: first, with the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs this country will always be at war. Secondly, after you convince the "closet socialists" at the **AA, you have to convince the professional socialists in our government that they are unwanted--and true or not, they would never (willingly) believe you.
Media firms acknowledge they are treading a sensitive line between preserving copyrights and satisfying the consumer. A system that introduces too many limitations will most certainly end in bad PR and a consumer backlash.... "We have to find ways to mitigate piracy caused by open [technology] formats. But at the same time we have to meet consumer demand for these formats," said Barney Wragg, vice president of Universal Music's eLabs, a technology R&D unit for the world's largest record label.... Last year, record label Sony Music came under fire when new European CD releases by artists Celine Dion and Shakira wouldn't play on a PC or Apple's Macintosh computer.
This is the precise reason that I simply adore Linux. The megacorps say "We have to walk the fine line between raping our consumers and servicing them," and they team up against us to push that line as close to rape as public opinion permits (a point that has, so far, slowly receeded under their relentless pressure for more and more control). However, with the existence of Linux suddenly the public has a tool by which they can stand firm to resist (and even reverse) this slow oppresion. In opening the operating system and applications, the control over the operating system (and what technologies are supported) is taken from the corporations and placed into the public's hands. This power can then be used to pressure the media megacorps toward using the dreaded "open [technology] formats" rather than closed, secret formats that are under their control and may contain surprising restrictions. With the ability to more clearly voice an opinion on what forms of control they find valid, the general public can draw a line in the sand, one that (in theory) the corporations cannot cross with a new technology without also opening that technology to scrutiny as with existing technologies.
Anyway, I don't expect any form of DRM to take off to the extent the megacorps wish, ever, with or without open technologies. There is too much of an "I own it, I can do what I want" attitude towards media in America for any sort of Digital Rights Manglement -- most expecially, time limiting DRM -- to take off in a significant manner. (Remember Circuit City's failed DiVX players?) All DRM has done so far is reduce the fair use casual copying that many consumers enjoy, while doing nothing to diminish the hardcore piracy that does pure bitcopies of disks -- which is its' reported purpose.
"As IBM executives know, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability... of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code.... If [contributed] source code is code copied from protected Unix code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact," the [filing] said.
Is this a flaw of Linux, or just the simple fact that SCO is claiming that their closed source system is being infringed? 'Closed source' means the general public -- including the esteemed Mr. Torvalds -- are not privy to the original code. So exactly what method of verification did SCO have in mind for Linux developers to follow? Of course, we then have Linus' (less directed) retort:
"It's not our side that isn't identifying the code. We'll work damn hard to identify everything they care to name," Torvalds said. "In fact, the source control system is out there in the public, and it identifies the source and the reason for patches."
IOW, "we can't identify infringing code and remove it if you refuse to give us that information. Our process is out in the open and you are able to glean all the facts you may need... what's your holdup?"
Personally, I question the origins and heritage of those 80 lines. There are three ways that Linux and SCO UnixWare[1] software might contain identical code:
Linux steals code from SCO. (This is what SCO is claiming -- theft of IP via IBM's developers.)
Linux gives code to SCO. (In my mind a likely possibility, given that SCO-- once Caldera Linux-- sold a Linux distrobution.)
Linux and SCO both borrow the same code from a third, public doman or BSD-style licensed source.
Personally, I place the first option as the least possible for two reasons: first, that I doubt any decently-skilled programmer would believe that (improperly donated) proprientary code would remain undetected in a open source program. (The "many eyes" principle doesn't make just bugs shallow!) Secondly, SCO "damning evidence" chart of UNIX history shows two arrows going FROM Linux to UnixWare around August 2000 (on either side of UnixWare 7.1.1+LKP), one coming from the Linux 2.2 branch and the other from the Linux 2.4 branch. This chart also shows one (and only one) arrow leading into Linux... from BSD 4.4 around the end of 1994 (Linux 1.1.52).
I'm laughing my head of at this whole brouhaha. SCO can't keep their story straight (one day it's trade secrets, then copyright, then patents, then...) nor can they even lie convincingly on their webpage. Somebody please start a class action lawsuit positing fraud against these folks.
[1: Even without seeing an exact statement from SCO about what part of their proprietary code is in question, I know it must be in UnixWare and not OpenServer because they complain IBM violated their IP with Monterrey... and the arrow on the history chart to Monterrey leads from UnixWare.]
What's wrong with being able to make a few bucks off of something unique, new and original of yours?... I think part of the problem lies in the USPTO. They probably need to have some subject-matter experts on hand who can check all the patent applications thoroughly.
You do realize that if an idea is original then there is no subject-matter expert? (Well, I'll grant you that new ideas build upon old ones, but when Einstein published his theories there were no experts on relativity.) If your idea is really creative, the best proof is a lack of experts.
I would say that the problem is in defining a threshold of 'creativeness' that divides the simple extension of an old idea ("Hey! Let's put our auction house on the internet!!") from the morphing of an old idea into a new one ("Hey! We can make a light-based storage system using a reflective disk and a spiral data path like a phonograph's!"). Sadly, though, I cannot think of a plain English way to describe the difference, and so I doubt that such a method will ever be adopted. (Thus the plethora of "online-based X" patents, as the USPTO seems to think anything not already in their files meets the critera for "unique".)
What i want to say though, is that perhaps this anime converted to real life will have the same effect on people, perhaps to a larger audience, showing more people that anime isn't just a cartoon for the vast unlaid, but rather something more meaningful, with great plots and scriptwriters.
I forget exactly where I heard this (I think it was on the "Making of..." DVD) but I recall seeing an interview which stated that part of the Wachowski bros.' intent in the cinematic style of the Matrix movies was to make it look much like anime. Even if that were not true, I clearly remember that they studied anime films to examine how the Japanese artists represented physical phenomona (fire, etc) as being aggresive opponents to mimic that with their cinematography, so for better or for worse the Matrix movies are "live action anime", in the sense that their visual style is highly similar.
I would agree, except that I don't see the end of this case being years off. SCO has stated a deadline by which they want IBM to buy them out -- June 13 -- or face having their Unix license for AIX revoked.
Since letting that deadline pass forms a"pick one OS to promote" dilemma, and also given that I don't see them giving up on their Linux or AIX development (given that their services are moving more and more to Linux on the small side, but they still promote AIX for high-end users) I expect a resolution before that date (but not much before it).
And given that IBM may have hired Eric Raymond as a "UNIX history consultant", I would say the outcome of this case is predetermined. (To be honest, I said the same about Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that didn't turn out as I expected.)
The argument for smalltime Linux distros against paying royalties for the supposedly infringing code gets a bit tougher
Except that anyone, even the IANALs around here (of which I am one) should know that a never went to court ``settlement'' like this carries absolutely zero legal precedent.
Instead, the way that I see this is simple: if Microsoft was -- as some have claimed -- funding this lawsuit, there had to be a monetary transaction somewhere. Until now, there wasn't any such transaction; while this is not in any manner a proof that Microsoft is the power behind the curtain, it does, coupled with their past statements on Linux as being harmful to IP, make this appear more like one of their publicity stunts.
I have no doubt that IBM will ride this out to its' logical conclusion, and we shall have another AT&T vs. BSD case.
I think your premise here is a bit flawed. The Baen Free Library and mp3.com do not represent the unrestricted distribution of a work.
While these works are not 100% "speech" free, they are "beer" free -- and that is the in context meaning, as I am talking finances. I will agree that while they aren't "libris" releases along the lines of the GPL or a Creative Commons license, they are not Rights Manglement crippled, and that is the minimum standard for copyright IMO.
As for Linux, that's a completely different case.... Linux benefits from being free simply because it wouldn't have been created without its liberal licensing model.
No, they are the same issue. On the one hand, we have the MPAA, RIAA, BSA and other such organizations clamoring for ever stronger copyright while we have examples taken from all forms of media showing that such stronger copyright can do as much harm as it does to help the situation. On the other hand weh have Linux, an example where it is clear restrictive copyright would cause harm to its' development... irrelevant to my point is the fact the author chose to "bypass" copyright to grant the end user even more rights than they normally would have. Linux shows the value that beer-free distrobution can have, and I would like to see how Lessing and especially Oppenheim approach the issue.
the people downloading a random mp3 aren't likely to help produce the next album for free.
Tell that to all the people who sampled Madonna's "What the f*!k do you think you're doing?" `track' into techno.
The primary issue of copyright being ownership and control, for whatever purpose
The purpose of copyright (and patents) is to "promote the progess of science and useful arts" [US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 paragraph 8] through granting the creator (inventor) "exclusive rights" [ibid]. We know what the purpose of copyright is; that is why I did not explicitly question it.
The current method of said promotion is to monetarily reward the inventor or creator through their exclusive control. My question is *really* twofold: first, is the best method for advancing the arts control, and secondly, is copyright as we wield it today -- a purely monetary reward for that control -- advancing the arts?
I am insidious enough to understand the prejudices of the debate would prevent the "real question" from being asked; I was forced to rephrase my question so that it is more palatable to the debatees -- Lessig would not be apt to question the Constitution directly, nor would Oppenheim question a right to exclusive control. Nevertheless, to fully and honestly answer my question (the `explanatory' part), one must consider the issues raised within the subtext of the question as I submitted it; which is to say, one must consider the question of whether copyright should monetarily reward artist through exclusive control, or if there is a better, "fairer" method.
(Ownership and control are not implicitly bad
No, they aren't... when applied in a logical manner. Ownership and control make sense for physical property, where duplication has an inherent cost. But the computers and the internet, removing the need for a permanent physical media upon which to distribute ideas, has served to prove the futility of mis-applying the laws of physical goods to abstract ones. If, as you suggest, ownership of an idea is a 'good' thing, at the very least you must agree that the application as practiced today is not 'good'; again, my question covers that area -- and your 'objection' shows how my bias was interwoven into the question I asked. It can be rephrased as: ``has traditional "physical" control of media become obsoleted when the internet and "virtual" distrobution has proven to be a potentially superior method?'' Asked that way, the obvious answer is "Yes", and the real question -- support your position -- comes to light.
"With online sites such as the Baen Free Library (Link: http://www.baen.com/library/) or MP3.com as well as online projects such as the Linux operating system showing that unrestricted distrobution of a work does not always diminish the monetary value and may instead increase that value, has the legal definition of copyright become outdated? If so, what would you see it redefined as and if not, what do you see as keeping copyright relevant to the digital era?"
In other words: Lessig, explain to me what you really think about copyright and Matt, don't just give me your organization's standard rhetoric, please try to find a convincing argument for once.
Knuth [stanford.edu] says that computer programming is an art, but I dare you to read his books and claim they are devoid of science.
Art is full of science too. (RTFA?) There's also a fair bit of mathematics (in getting perspectives right for realism).
I love this art/code link as presented. I studied art first because it was required by my school, then as I thought it was a way for me to improve concentration (I'm not ADHD but focus has always a problem for me), now I'm starting to see that as I improve in my art skills I start to see how code works together better.
In a funny, abstract way, good code is art. (At least as much so as "code is speech" and "code is law".)
Which leads to something like an absurdly small number of harmonies available (~96k? I don't recall, but it's silly) before everything is copyrighted.
If you simply play one note at a time, one note per second, you can play every four-note combination on a piano (all 59,969,536) in 1 year 320 days.
And given that every harmonic pair has a "dominant" tone (which one your ear will recognize the note as), you could quite easily use this to calculate^W compose a musical piece that ended all "creativity" in music afterward.
There are only a limited number of note combinations possible, and of those a smaller set are msuically harmonic ("pleasant to the ear"). *ANY* selection of notes smaller than an entire work will, eventually, be repeated elsewhere and thus defining what constitutes the integral piece of "creativity" naturally limits creativity. Ignoring music theory constraints (eg. change in key, note length, scale harmonics) there are just under 60 million 4-note combinations playable on a 88 key piano. Playing one note per second continouously, one person (machine?) could play a sequence of notes that hit every combination in one year, 320 days.
<sarcasm>Anyone up for calculating such a musical "composition", copyrighting it, and going after all later musical artists? </sarcasm>
Oh don't take that to mean I was slow in realizing it was rigged: all such tests are "rigged" in that they have a bias (at least this one displays proudly that it was performed "under contract from Microsoft" on the first page). No, what took me so long to realize was the sneaky underhanded methods that could have been applied (but probably weren't) towards making this even more subtly biased, and in a way that would be practically impossible to prove.
I read this article just before eating lunch. Then, upon returning to the computer, a thought hit me.
The benchmark could have been very, very rigged.
They Windows 2003 version used was Release Candidate 2. Now, while I know this was public beta software, it is possible Microsoft specifically engineered the software used to be "very good" at short burst file serving (e.g. what this test tested), at the expese of other server tasks or long term stability. When people run the test with the release version and get completely disparate results, Microsoft can say "Oh, we must have changed the code to fix X problem that in some way altered your results."
Very sneaky, very very underhanded... and given Microsoft's track record with using things such as bug reports as PR opportunities, I would consider it a possibility. (Maybe not a extra big possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.)
Too late. You can already examine many aspects of everyday life as quantum waveforms, with further data (e.g. observation) acting to (partially) collapse the function. Therefore, we've already seen quantum dot coms -- the tech bubble got invested in -- more literally, observed -- and then proceeded to collapse.
Nothing sinister implied in their actions, just market control and maximizing profits. its what a business does.. ( or if it don't, its not a business much longer )
Sorry, you're half wrong there. A business needs profits, yes, but why should a business need "market control" in the same manner? There are umpteen thousand grocery chains out there, and all of them do brisk business... the lack of market domination by any one hasn't hurt them one bit. My shopping at Aldi doesn't do direct harm to Kroger or Publix or Albertsons (it's just a loss of a potential sale, not the direct loss of money).
If a business claims to need control of the market in order to survive, that is a very good indicator that market forces are putting them out of business. So yes, when Microsoft claims a need to control the PC hardware market I see sinister things -- because, quite obviously to me, that is a sinister remark ("oops, we're going to be bankrupt unless we jigger with the market").
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is that there are two differences between closed and open source, and you have focused on one while I focused on the other.
It is true that the defining detail of open source is that anyone (willing to accept the GPL or BSD or Mozilla or other licencing) may alter the code ... but (as a general rule, and specifically SCO UnixWare) the source code is declared a 'trade secret' and kept behind locked doors (and/or NDAs). So tell me, when closed source programs are 'trade secret' and not open to public scrutiny, while open source ones are available for any party to examine, who is likely to be unable to find infringement?
IOW, I see SCO as generally saying, "Linux programmers, remove our Magical Mystery Code (which you are forbidden from seeing) from your system with your super psychic powers or face our wrath!"
He's pinin' for the fjords.
I see two problems with that suggestion that would prevent it from being implemented: first, with the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs this country will always be at war. Secondly, after you convince the "closet socialists" at the **AA, you have to convince the professional socialists in our government that they are unwanted--and true or not, they would never (willingly) believe you.
This is the precise reason that I simply adore Linux. The megacorps say "We have to walk the fine line between raping our consumers and servicing them," and they team up against us to push that line as close to rape as public opinion permits (a point that has, so far, slowly receeded under their relentless pressure for more and more control). However, with the existence of Linux suddenly the public has a tool by which they can stand firm to resist (and even reverse) this slow oppresion. In opening the operating system and applications, the control over the operating system (and what technologies are supported) is taken from the corporations and placed into the public's hands. This power can then be used to pressure the media megacorps toward using the dreaded "open [technology] formats" rather than closed, secret formats that are under their control and may contain surprising restrictions. With the ability to more clearly voice an opinion on what forms of control they find valid, the general public can draw a line in the sand, one that (in theory) the corporations cannot cross with a new technology without also opening that technology to scrutiny as with existing technologies.
Anyway, I don't expect any form of DRM to take off to the extent the megacorps wish, ever, with or without open technologies. There is too much of an "I own it, I can do what I want" attitude towards media in America for any sort of Digital Rights Manglement -- most expecially, time limiting DRM -- to take off in a significant manner. (Remember Circuit City's failed DiVX players?) All DRM has done so far is reduce the fair use casual copying that many consumers enjoy, while doing nothing to diminish the hardcore piracy that does pure bitcopies of disks -- which is its' reported purpose.
Is this a flaw of Linux, or just the simple fact that SCO is claiming that their closed source system is being infringed? 'Closed source' means the general public -- including the esteemed Mr. Torvalds -- are not privy to the original code. So exactly what method of verification did SCO have in mind for Linux developers to follow? Of course, we then have Linus' (less directed) retort:
IOW, "we can't identify infringing code and remove it if you refuse to give us that information. Our process is out in the open and you are able to glean all the facts you may need ... what's your holdup?"
Too bad that their case was dismissed already.
Here you go....
Personally, I place the first option as the least possible for two reasons: first, that I doubt any decently-skilled programmer would believe that (improperly donated) proprientary code would remain undetected in a open source program. (The "many eyes" principle doesn't make just bugs shallow!) Secondly, SCO "damning evidence" chart of UNIX history shows two arrows going FROM Linux to UnixWare around August 2000 (on either side of UnixWare 7.1.1+LKP), one coming from the Linux 2.2 branch and the other from the Linux 2.4 branch. This chart also shows one (and only one) arrow leading into Linux ... from BSD 4.4 around the end of 1994 (Linux 1.1.52).
I'm laughing my head of at this whole brouhaha. SCO can't keep their story straight (one day it's trade secrets, then copyright, then patents, then ...) nor can they even lie convincingly on their webpage. Somebody please start a class action lawsuit positing fraud against these folks.
[1: Even without seeing an exact statement from SCO about what part of their proprietary code is in question, I know it must be in UnixWare and not OpenServer because they complain IBM violated their IP with MonterreyYou do realize that if an idea is original then there is no subject-matter expert? (Well, I'll grant you that new ideas build upon old ones, but when Einstein published his theories there were no experts on relativity.) If your idea is really creative, the best proof is a lack of experts.
I would say that the problem is in defining a threshold of 'creativeness' that divides the simple extension of an old idea ("Hey! Let's put our auction house on the internet!!") from the morphing of an old idea into a new one ("Hey! We can make a light-based storage system using a reflective disk and a spiral data path like a phonograph's!"). Sadly, though, I cannot think of a plain English way to describe the difference, and so I doubt that such a method will ever be adopted. (Thus the plethora of "online-based X" patents, as the USPTO seems to think anything not already in their files meets the critera for "unique".)
I forget exactly where I heard this (I think it was on the "Making of..." DVD) but I recall seeing an interview which stated that part of the Wachowski bros.' intent in the cinematic style of the Matrix movies was to make it look much like anime. Even if that were not true, I clearly remember that they studied anime films to examine how the Japanese artists represented physical phenomona (fire, etc) as being aggresive opponents to mimic that with their cinematography, so for better or for worse the Matrix movies are "live action anime", in the sense that their visual style is highly similar.
I would agree, except that I don't see the end of this case being years off. SCO has stated a deadline by which they want IBM to buy them out -- June 13 -- or face having their Unix license for AIX revoked.
Since letting that deadline pass forms a"pick one OS to promote" dilemma, and also given that I don't see them giving up on their Linux or AIX development (given that their services are moving more and more to Linux on the small side, but they still promote AIX for high-end users) I expect a resolution before that date (but not much before it).
And given that IBM may have hired Eric Raymond as a "UNIX history consultant", I would say the outcome of this case is predetermined. (To be honest, I said the same about Eldred v. Ashcroft, but that didn't turn out as I expected.)
Except that anyone, even the IANALs around here (of which I am one) should know that a never went to court ``settlement'' like this carries absolutely zero legal precedent.
Instead, the way that I see this is simple: if Microsoft was -- as some have claimed -- funding this lawsuit, there had to be a monetary transaction somewhere. Until now, there wasn't any such transaction; while this is not in any manner a proof that Microsoft is the power behind the curtain, it does, coupled with their past statements on Linux as being harmful to IP, make this appear more like one of their publicity stunts.
I have no doubt that IBM will ride this out to its' logical conclusion, and we shall have another AT&T vs. BSD case.While these works are not 100% "speech" free, they are "beer" free -- and that is the in context meaning, as I am talking finances. I will agree that while they aren't "libris" releases along the lines of the GPL or a Creative Commons license, they are not Rights Manglement crippled, and that is the minimum standard for copyright IMO.
No, they are the same issue. On the one hand, we have the MPAA, RIAA, BSA and other such organizations clamoring for ever stronger copyright while we have examples taken from all forms of media showing that such stronger copyright can do as much harm as it does to help the situation. On the other hand weh have Linux, an example where it is clear restrictive copyright would cause harm to its' development ... irrelevant to my point is the fact the author chose to "bypass" copyright to grant the end user even more rights than they normally would have. Linux shows the value that beer-free distrobution can have, and I would like to see how Lessing and especially Oppenheim approach the issue.
Tell that to all the people who sampled Madonna's "What the f*!k do you think you're doing?" `track' into techno.The purpose of copyright (and patents) is to "promote the progess of science and useful arts" [US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 paragraph 8] through granting the creator (inventor) "exclusive rights" [ibid]. We know what the purpose of copyright is; that is why I did not explicitly question it.
The current method of said promotion is to monetarily reward the inventor or creator through their exclusive control. My question is *really* twofold: first, is the best method for advancing the arts control, and secondly, is copyright as we wield it today -- a purely monetary reward for that control -- advancing the arts?
I am insidious enough to understand the prejudices of the debate would prevent the "real question" from being asked; I was forced to rephrase my question so that it is more palatable to the debatees -- Lessig would not be apt to question the Constitution directly, nor would Oppenheim question a right to exclusive control. Nevertheless, to fully and honestly answer my question (the `explanatory' part), one must consider the issues raised within the subtext of the question as I submitted it; which is to say, one must consider the question of whether copyright should monetarily reward artist through exclusive control, or if there is a better, "fairer" method.
No, they aren't ... when applied in a logical manner. Ownership and control make sense for physical property, where duplication has an inherent cost. But the computers and the internet, removing the need for a permanent physical media upon which to distribute ideas, has served to prove the futility of mis-applying the laws of physical goods to abstract ones. If, as you suggest, ownership of an idea is a 'good' thing, at the very least you must agree that the application as practiced today is not 'good'; again, my question covers that area -- and your 'objection' shows how my bias was interwoven into the question I asked. It can be rephrased as: ``has traditional "physical" control of media become obsoleted when the internet and "virtual" distrobution has proven to be a potentially superior method?'' Asked that way, the obvious answer is "Yes", and the real question -- support your position -- comes to light.
"With online sites such as the Baen Free Library (Link: http://www.baen.com/library/) or MP3.com as well as online projects such as the Linux operating system showing that unrestricted distrobution of a work does not always diminish the monetary value and may instead increase that value, has the legal definition of copyright become outdated? If so, what would you see it redefined as and if not, what do you see as keeping copyright relevant to the digital era?"
In other words: Lessig, explain to me what you really think about copyright and Matt, don't just give me your organization's standard rhetoric, please try to find a convincing argument for once.
I love this art/code link as presented. I studied art first because it was required by my school, then as I thought it was a way for me to improve concentration (I'm not ADHD but focus has always a problem for me), now I'm starting to see that as I improve in my art skills I start to see how code works together better.
In a funny, abstract way, good code is art. (At least as much so as "code is speech" and "code is law".)
And given that every harmonic pair has a "dominant" tone (which one your ear will recognize the note as), you could quite easily use this to calculate^W compose a musical piece that ended all "creativity" in music afterward.
IMO that ruling is absolutely ridiculous.
There are only a limited number of note combinations possible, and of those a smaller set are msuically harmonic ("pleasant to the ear"). *ANY* selection of notes smaller than an entire work will, eventually, be repeated elsewhere and thus defining what constitutes the integral piece of "creativity" naturally limits creativity. Ignoring music theory constraints (eg. change in key, note length, scale harmonics) there are just under 60 million 4-note combinations playable on a 88 key piano. Playing one note per second continouously, one person (machine?) could play a sequence of notes that hit every combination in one year, 320 days.
<sarcasm>Anyone up for calculating such a musical "composition", copyrighting it, and going after all later musical artists? </sarcasm>
Oh don't take that to mean I was slow in realizing it was rigged: all such tests are "rigged" in that they have a bias (at least this one displays proudly that it was performed "under contract from Microsoft" on the first page). No, what took me so long to realize was the sneaky underhanded methods that could have been applied (but probably weren't) towards making this even more subtly biased, and in a way that would be practically impossible to prove.
I read this article just before eating lunch. Then, upon returning to the computer, a thought hit me.
... and given Microsoft's track record with using things such as bug reports as PR opportunities, I would consider it a possibility. (Maybe not a extra big possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.)
The benchmark could have been very, very rigged.
They Windows 2003 version used was Release Candidate 2. Now, while I know this was public beta software, it is possible Microsoft specifically engineered the software used to be "very good" at short burst file serving (e.g. what this test tested), at the expese of other server tasks or long term stability. When people run the test with the release version and get completely disparate results, Microsoft can say "Oh, we must have changed the code to fix X problem that in some way altered your results."
Very sneaky, very very underhanded
Too late. You can already examine many aspects of everyday life as quantum waveforms, with further data (e.g. observation) acting to (partially) collapse the function. Therefore, we've already seen quantum dot coms -- the tech bubble got invested in -- more literally, observed -- and then proceeded to collapse.
Nah, he used irrational logic to arrive at a mildly reasonable conclusion. Managers justify irrational conlusions with mildly reasonable logic.
Sure, there's not much difference in the end result, but it's the process that's under scrutiny here.If a business claims to need control of the market in order to survive, that is a very good indicator that market forces are putting them out of business. So yes, when Microsoft claims a need to control the PC hardware market I see sinister things -- because, quite obviously to me, that is a sinister remark ("oops, we're going to be bankrupt unless we jigger with the market").
Microsoft sure has gone away as far as I am personally concerned.
I own three computers (Mac laptop, AMD desktop running Linux, Palm-based handheld) and don't run any Microsoft made (or Windows-based) software.
If you can think of some way in which their monopoly directly affects me, I'd like to hear it.