The problem is that you confuse manual controls and manual control inputs. What type of control a person or computer uses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the mind making the decisions about what inputs to make. Computers are yet to be sophisticated to handle many situations as well has humans do.
Some humans. A huge proportion of mankind don't know how to drive. I don't. Most of my friends don't. Kids and handicaped people can't, legally speaking.
I'd rather have automated cars that can move untrained people, children and handicaped around, than have error-prone stragers do it (eg: buses).
Would you rather trust a stranger than a machine?
And then, let's not forget the traffic factor. I live in an area of my city (Buenos Aires), where it's faster to walk 20 blocks than take a bus or cab (about twice as fast, btw). On one hand, because there's a stupid amount of peolpe moving around here, but on second hand, it's because they're awfully disorganized and inefficient. They each want the shortest route, and end up clogging everything instead of coordinating for greater overall efficiency. Humans simply can't do that. And generally, wouldn't if they could either.
Transport companies will benefit. Transportation cost will drop (though the companies may keep the difference instead of translating it to the ser). People who travel a lot will benefit from a more pleasant experience. Products from other regions will have less net cost. Traffic jams will be reduced greately.
On the downside: Car manufacturers will adapt and survive. Insurance companies will suffer a lot of drop in income. Mechanics will get a drop in amount of work (especially in regions with lots of accidents). Drivers will need to move on to something else.
However, people move on from certain jobs every time we have a breakthrough - keeping the jobs around is something that we all pay as a society. I'd much rather pay to retrain those people into something else (at their choosing?), than actually have them keep a job which we'll all by paying for, indirectly.
(Replying to self) Many times a taxi customer needs to make a train/bus, will a GoogleTaxi know that? I have a perfect record getting people to the stations, sometimes needing to cut off a departing bus, or running up to a train to keep the doors from closing. An autonomous cab cannot do that (yet?).
If we had only self-driving cars, there would be no need for this. The cab would know the exact amount of time (because it can be linked to all the other cars and therefore, know the traffic) needed to get to the plane/train, and be there on time.
If the human didn't get onto the cab in time, then tough luck for him. We'll replace the humans in the long run anyway.
I'm not a Linux kernel dev (though have lots of user-mode Linux/Unix experience), but my understanding of that world is "we'll change anything and everything if and whenever we feel like it, and it's up to the rest of the world to keep up with those changes". So your example, ironically, would apply much more to a Linux driver sample than it would a Windows driver sample.
Linux will change their ABI if necesary, or interal APIs, but not external APIs.
The streaming functionality is obviously more interesting when a windows-host is involved, so one can stream a Windows-game to a Linux box (for example running SteamOS on a NUC), but Steam itself works perfectly fine on Linux as does a number of games.
More interesting for windows users maybe, but not for people who don't have any windows boxes at home. But for linux users, it's pretty useless.
In truth, they offered a windows-centric feature, but managed to label it as available for all platforms. If it's not available for non-windows users, then it's doesn't really "support linux".
So the real functionality is only there if you have any access to Windows hosts, otherwise, it's just a matter of wating. It's a nice trick to be able to claim "supports linux" without actually making it all work on linux.
The average person does not do this sort of pirating. The average person heads over to thepiratebay.org and downloads the file that somebody else got by cracking the DRM implementation.
I'd very much have a [professionally installed] subdermal RFID implant in my hand. There's no way I can loose it, and no matter the situation, I can always unlock my phone. There's no such thing as "I got so drunk I lost my hand last night.". In case of really nasty accidents, you always have the classic pin-code anyway.
Yes, it's still a thing. Still works on modern Windows. You'll have infinitely more problems getting the things to run than you will do accessing the original CD's.
But, to be honest, there's a plethora of one-click installs of any game you can mention, legit and dubious, out there - complete with emulation and fixes for modern OS.
In fact, many very old game are more likely to run on wine than they are on recent versions of windows.
There's also zero point archiving something that people have ever heard of. DOOM isn't going to drop off the face of the earth but, say, some ancient obscure title that you downloaded from a random FTP site (back when that just meant "online" not "pirated") or wrote yourself - that might be worth archiving.
I find, when it comes to archiving, 50% of the stuff is absolute crap that you'll never, ever refer to again. 40% of it is mainstream titles that everyone has and that never "disappear" entirely anyway.
The problem with this mentallity is "what if everybody thinks like this?". If everybody starts assuming someone else had DOOM, and delete it, we'll end up in a DOOMless world.
if you know you really (i mean really!) purchased a CD years ago, shouldn't that make it ok to download the same CD in FLAC or 320vbr from your fav pirate site??
Most specify that you can make backups of it, so it'd be ok to rip them into FLAC.
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
#2 is your backup copy provision, #1 means you can run a program without infringing it, as long as you're just running it (and not decompiling it or something else of that nature).
Cool, so if my CD got stolen, I can still keep/user the backups I made.
The terms of the license include limitation to the physical media.
Of course, this is a raw deal, but it is also a very simple concept that geeks refuse to understand (though I remain convinced that they are capable).
You are not granted metaphysical rights to the music itself. You are also not granted duplication rights. You get playback rights to that music on that physical media, and that's it. If the media gets damaged, too bad for you, your rights were only to that physical media so you have to buy a new one.
Like I said, the deal sucks, but it is not fundamentally self-contradictory as people try to make out to be.
But usually, these licenses state that I may duplicate for backup purposes. Can I play that backup once my main is damaged? What if my backups if a FLAC file?
This is incredible true and has been over a decade. They don't seem to realize that they have better hardware for the same price, but people refuse to buy them because it's hard to appreciate the betterness without proper drivers. I'm sure the FLOSS crowd would also start embracing AMD if they did decent OSS drivers like Intel does.
And similar specs. The waterproof Kyocera Hydro is US$29.64 right now with free Prime shipping on Amazon for the Kyocera (carrier locked though, but WiFi works fine; unfortunately not sunlight readable though) versus US$99.00 (and free shipping) for the ZTE Open C.
If it's carrier locked, then US$29.64 is not the real price, but just the first payment.
So I guess I don't see where there are any cost of hardware advantages to this first offering with Firefox OS. Maybe there will be more to come?
Indeed, you can't expect the first batch to compete in producution costs with those other phones who're way ahead in terms of logistics, markets, etc.
It's true you can only run that Kyocera on Boost Mobile, but WiFi works fine even without a plan. I don't know if that phone is carrier subsidized to any degree. I bought three Hydros (one a bit better) for developer testing for writing networked Android apps. I've paid for a few days of phone service for one of them mostly as a test; I have no plans on activating the other two as phones. I doubt those are subsidized much if at all, but I have no proof of that other than the fact than anyone can buy them and just use them as WiFi only devices.
Anyway, just thought more about your point on cost... Firefox OS is currently more expensive than low-end Android. So the (one billion Mozilla/Google US dollars later) question is, how fast will that change?
Even if Firefox OS was better than Android (still to be seen other than for privacy), it would still face the same uphill adoption of, say, FireWire/Thunderbolt vs. USB1/2/3.
Also for development/testing/networking purposes I bought a ~$120 Android OLPC XO tablet that comes pre-loaded with educational software: http://www.amazon.com/XO-7-inc...
In a few years, those prices will continue to fall. It's much more pleasant to browse the web on that Android tablet than on an Android phone. I'm not convinced a Firefox OS tablet is going to beat that price anytime soon -- even if it might have privacy benefits.
Again, the very first device can't be expected to compete in price like that, given that their competition already has a strong market foothold. I expect (hope) that this will change as the scenario evolves.
That applies if your game is somehow different or original (like Mario!). If your game is the seventh in a series and fourth to use the same engine, and just adds new maps (which aren't even a new challenge), you should at least add a story to it to make it worth people's money.
Indeed, starving children's situation will change greatly with a bootable USB drive. Having a $7 USB stick is definitely better than their current situation for people in regions with no electricity as well!
"something" is the same as nothing if you don't even cover the basic necesities first.
All true, and a great article. Still, I already bought a couple Kyocera Hydro water-proof cell Android Smartphones for $50 or so each, and hardware costs are falling fast, so it is not clear that OS footprint matters much in the USA, although maybe in Africa and China and India it still does.
Great! So these lower costs will also reflect on Mozilla's device. Won't you be glad the day they mass-produce these and they cost less than 50USD? (by the way, 50USD can be a few days or even a week's salary in some places of the world).
And Mozilla could also develop democracy-empowering apps and standards on top of that XPCOM platform for everyone, including ones for collective civic sensemaking and a semantic desktop like I talk about here: http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...
If I was leading Mozilla, that is what I would have focused more on. Firefox OS on a Smartphone or elsewhere is a great idea in theory, but seems like a nonstarter in practice as far as *extensive* adoption in the Western world (even if I myself might buy a phone with Firefox OS on it preferentially for FOSS and privacy reasons).
That's why they're not targeting traditional western markets, but emerging and underdeveloped ones.
Google succeeded against iOS with mobile phones from nothing to 80% Smartphone market share in a few years because Google had deep pockets and a lot of good will at the time and was at the beginning of an exponentially growing marketplace. Mozilla may have the good will (although not at the scale Google had then among consumers) but it does not have the deep pockets. It also faces an entrenched mobile Smartphone landscape at this point with Android. Plus it does not have a compelling broad service offering like Google had with search and gmail to go with the phone
That's your prespective. A lot of peope will see if from the other end "oh, good, it's not tied to google's services and I can use my existing email accounts and stuff".
What money Mozilla has is almost entirely coming from Google (about a billion dollars total over the last few years), where only about a million a year is in individual donations. While there is a lot a few sharp developers could do if funded with even just a million dollars in donations a year, if Google pulls the plug on Mozilla's funding if Firefox OS were to even hint of being a successor for any other reason, where does that leave Firefox OS? Probably not stuff I should be saying in public given I just applied for a "Software Engineer, Platform" job at Mozilla, but what the hey.:-) http://careers.mozilla.org/en-...
I love the Mozilla mission of FOSS software to support open standards (with the exception I feel Mozilla made a big mistake on not backing WebSQL built on SQLite as a defacto standard). However, getting people to *install* anything as an uphill battle, let alone buy anything.
Yes, getting users to install stuff is imposible (unless it's virus.exe). I'm not certain they'll succeddin android-dominated markets, and least not in the short run. But there's plenty of other markets.
That's a big reason web-browser-hosted software is winning over the desktop and why I'm moving more of what I do in that direction. Even Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls moved that wa
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you confuse manual controls and manual control inputs. What type of control a person or computer uses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the mind making the decisions about what inputs to make. Computers are yet to be sophisticated to handle many situations as well has humans do.
Some humans. A huge proportion of mankind don't know how to drive. I don't. Most of my friends don't. Kids and handicaped people can't, legally speaking.
I'd rather have automated cars that can move untrained people, children and handicaped around, than have error-prone stragers do it (eg: buses).
Would you rather trust a stranger than a machine?
And then, let's not forget the traffic factor. I live in an area of my city (Buenos Aires), where it's faster to walk 20 blocks than take a bus or cab (about twice as fast, btw). On one hand, because there's a stupid amount of peolpe moving around here, but on second hand, it's because they're awfully disorganized and inefficient. They each want the shortest route, and end up clogging everything instead of coordinating for greater overall efficiency. Humans simply can't do that. And generally, wouldn't if they could either.
On the upside:
Transport companies will benefit.
Transportation cost will drop (though the companies may keep the difference instead of translating it to the ser).
People who travel a lot will benefit from a more pleasant experience.
Products from other regions will have less net cost.
Traffic jams will be reduced greately.
On the downside:
Car manufacturers will adapt and survive.
Insurance companies will suffer a lot of drop in income.
Mechanics will get a drop in amount of work (especially in regions with lots of accidents).
Drivers will need to move on to something else.
However, people move on from certain jobs every time we have a breakthrough - keeping the jobs around is something that we all pay as a society. I'd much rather pay to retrain those people into something else (at their choosing?), than actually have them keep a job which we'll all by paying for, indirectly.
(Replying to self) Many times a taxi customer needs to make a train/bus, will a GoogleTaxi know that? I have a perfect record getting people to the stations, sometimes needing to cut off a departing bus, or running up to a train to keep the doors from closing. An autonomous cab cannot do that (yet?).
If we had only self-driving cars, there would be no need for this. The cab would know the exact amount of time (because it can be linked to all the other cars and therefore, know the traffic) needed to get to the plane/train, and be there on time.
If the human didn't get onto the cab in time, then tough luck for him.
We'll replace the humans in the long run anyway.
I'm not a Linux kernel dev (though have lots of user-mode Linux/Unix experience), but my understanding of that world is "we'll change anything and everything if and whenever we feel like it, and it's up to the rest of the world to keep up with those changes". So your example, ironically, would apply much more to a Linux driver sample than it would a Windows driver sample.
Linux will change their ABI if necesary, or interal APIs, but not external APIs.
The streaming functionality is obviously more interesting when a windows-host is involved, so one can stream a Windows-game to a Linux box (for example running SteamOS on a NUC), but Steam itself works perfectly fine on Linux as does a number of games.
More interesting for windows users maybe, but not for people who don't have any windows boxes at home. But for linux users, it's pretty useless.
In truth, they offered a windows-centric feature, but managed to label it as available for all platforms. If it's not available for non-windows users, then it's doesn't really "support linux".
So the real functionality is only there if you have any access to Windows hosts, otherwise, it's just a matter of wating.
It's a nice trick to be able to claim "supports linux" without actually making it all work on linux.
In this particular scenario, it looks like the Russian politician is the one who's waging war. And you don't get to vote for Russian presidents.
The average person does not do this sort of pirating. The average person heads over to thepiratebay.org and downloads the file that somebody else got by cracking the DRM implementation.
Or latinamerica. Or asia. My guess is that over 50% of the world actually pirates their stuff.
Yeah, or just run a fake X-Server which actually saves the content to a file, instead of displaying it. The options are endless.
They do use flash though, which sucks. I've never understood why these new services use obsolete technology like this.
I'd very much have a [professionally installed] subdermal RFID implant in my hand. There's no way I can loose it, and no matter the situation, I can always unlock my phone.
There's no such thing as "I got so drunk I lost my hand last night.". In case of really nasty accidents, you always have the classic pin-code anyway.
They claim it'll last 1000 years, yet, where can I get a drive that will last that long?
You could have googled it.
Yes, it's still a thing. Still works on modern Windows. You'll have infinitely more problems getting the things to run than you will do accessing the original CD's.
But, to be honest, there's a plethora of one-click installs of any game you can mention, legit and dubious, out there - complete with emulation and fixes for modern OS.
In fact, many very old game are more likely to run on wine than they are on recent versions of windows.
There's also zero point archiving something that people have ever heard of. DOOM isn't going to drop off the face of the earth but, say, some ancient obscure title that you downloaded from a random FTP site (back when that just meant "online" not "pirated") or wrote yourself - that might be worth archiving.
I find, when it comes to archiving, 50% of the stuff is absolute crap that you'll never, ever refer to again. 40% of it is mainstream titles that everyone has and that never "disappear" entirely anyway.
The problem with this mentallity is "what if everybody thinks like this?". If everybody starts assuming someone else had DOOM, and delete it, we'll end up in a DOOMless world.
if you know you really (i mean really!) purchased a CD years ago, shouldn't that make it ok to download the same CD in FLAC or 320vbr from your fav pirate site??
Most specify that you can make backups of it, so it'd be ok to rip them into FLAC.
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
#2 is your backup copy provision, #1 means you can run a program without infringing it, as long as you're just running it (and not decompiling it or something else of that nature).
Cool, so if my CD got stolen, I can still keep/user the backups I made.
The terms of the license include limitation to the physical media.
Of course, this is a raw deal, but it is also a very simple concept that geeks refuse to understand (though I remain convinced that they are capable).
You are not granted metaphysical rights to the music itself. You are also not granted duplication rights. You get playback rights to that music on that physical media, and that's it. If the media gets damaged, too bad for you, your rights were only to that physical media so you have to buy a new one.
Like I said, the deal sucks, but it is not fundamentally self-contradictory as people try to make out to be.
But usually, these licenses state that I may duplicate for backup purposes. Can I play that backup once my main is damaged? What if my backups if a FLAC file?
Let me make this really really clear: He's talking about torrents.
This is incredible true and has been over a decade. They don't seem to realize that they have better hardware for the same price, but people refuse to buy them because it's hard to appreciate the betterness without proper drivers.
I'm sure the FLOSS crowd would also start embracing AMD if they did decent OSS drivers like Intel does.
And similar specs. The waterproof Kyocera Hydro is US$29.64 right now with free Prime shipping on Amazon for the Kyocera (carrier locked though, but WiFi works fine; unfortunately not sunlight readable though) versus US$99.00 (and free shipping) for the ZTE Open C.
If it's carrier locked, then US$29.64 is not the real price, but just the first payment.
The Hydro is three times cheaper than the Firefox OS device. The ZTE Open C has slightly better hardware specs though and is not locked to a carrier given the SIM card slots.
http://www.amazon.com/Kyocera-...
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/...
So I guess I don't see where there are any cost of hardware advantages to this first offering with Firefox OS. Maybe there will be more to come?
Indeed, you can't expect the first batch to compete in producution costs with those other phones who're way ahead in terms of logistics, markets, etc.
It's true you can only run that Kyocera on Boost Mobile, but WiFi works fine even without a plan. I don't know if that phone is carrier subsidized to any degree. I bought three Hydros (one a bit better) for developer testing for writing networked Android apps. I've paid for a few days of phone service for one of them mostly as a test; I have no plans on activating the other two as phones. I doubt those are subsidized much if at all, but I have no proof of that other than the fact than anyone can buy them and just use them as WiFi only devices.
I see multiple unlocked Android phones on Amazon for about US$100:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sel...
Anyway, just thought more about your point on cost... Firefox OS is currently more expensive than low-end Android. So the (one billion Mozilla/Google US dollars later) question is, how fast will that change?
Even if Firefox OS was better than Android (still to be seen other than for privacy), it would still face the same uphill adoption of, say, FireWire/Thunderbolt vs. USB1/2/3.
Also for development/testing/networking purposes I bought a ~$120 Android OLPC XO tablet that comes pre-loaded with educational software:
http://www.amazon.com/XO-7-inc...
In a few years, those prices will continue to fall. It's much more pleasant to browse the web on that Android tablet than on an Android phone. I'm not convinced a Firefox OS tablet is going to beat that price anytime soon -- even if it might have privacy benefits.
Again, the very first device can't be expected to compete in price like that, given that their competition already has a strong market foothold. I expect (hope) that this will change as the scenario evolves.
That applies if your game is somehow different or original (like Mario!). If your game is the seventh in a series and fourth to use the same engine, and just adds new maps (which aren't even a new challenge), you should at least add a story to it to make it worth people's money.
Of course, if people keep buying, why bother?
You do the real fix: Tell your friends to stop using broken software and quit using iMessage.
Indeed, starving children's situation will change greatly with a bootable USB drive.
Having a $7 USB stick is definitely better than their current situation for people in regions with no electricity as well!
"something" is the same as nothing if you don't even cover the basic necesities first.
I'd like to think it's unrelated to this post; especially considering what Mozilla stands for.
All true, and a great article. Still, I already bought a couple Kyocera Hydro water-proof cell Android Smartphones for $50 or so each, and hardware costs are falling fast, so it is not clear that OS footprint matters much in the USA, although maybe in Africa and China and India it still does.
Great! So these lower costs will also reflect on Mozilla's device. Won't you be glad the day they mass-produce these and they cost less than 50USD? (by the way, 50USD can be a few days or even a week's salary in some places of the world).
That said, Mozilla could instead have focused on its XPCOM technology to ride above the OS in a cross-platform way (somewhat like VIsualWorks Smalltalk or now Qt or some others):
https://developer.mozilla.org/...
https://developer.mozilla.org/...
And Mozilla could also develop democracy-empowering apps and standards on top of that XPCOM platform for everyone, including ones for collective civic sensemaking and a semantic desktop like I talk about here:
http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...
If I was leading Mozilla, that is what I would have focused more on. Firefox OS on a Smartphone or elsewhere is a great idea in theory, but seems like a nonstarter in practice as far as *extensive* adoption in the Western world (even if I myself might buy a phone with Firefox OS on it preferentially for FOSS and privacy reasons).
That's why they're not targeting traditional western markets, but emerging and underdeveloped ones.
Google succeeded against iOS with mobile phones from nothing to 80% Smartphone market share in a few years because Google had deep pockets and a lot of good will at the time and was at the beginning of an exponentially growing marketplace. Mozilla may have the good will (although not at the scale Google had then among consumers) but it does not have the deep pockets. It also faces an entrenched mobile Smartphone landscape at this point with Android. Plus it does not have a compelling broad service offering like Google had with search and gmail to go with the phone
That's your prespective. A lot of peope will see if from the other end "oh, good, it's not tied to google's services and I can use my existing email accounts and stuff".
What money Mozilla has is almost entirely coming from Google (about a billion dollars total over the last few years), where only about a million a year is in individual donations. While there is a lot a few sharp developers could do if funded with even just a million dollars in donations a year, if Google pulls the plug on Mozilla's funding if Firefox OS were to even hint of being a successor for any other reason, where does that leave Firefox OS? Probably not stuff I should be saying in public given I just applied for a "Software Engineer, Platform" job at Mozilla, but what the hey. :-)
http://careers.mozilla.org/en-...
I love the Mozilla mission of FOSS software to support open standards (with the exception I feel Mozilla made a big mistake on not backing WebSQL built on SQLite as a defacto standard). However, getting people to *install* anything as an uphill battle, let alone buy anything.
Yes, getting users to install stuff is imposible (unless it's virus.exe). I'm not certain they'll succeddin android-dominated markets, and least not in the short run. But there's plenty of other markets.
That's a big reason web-browser-hosted software is winning over the desktop and why I'm moving more of what I do in that direction. Even Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls moved that wa