If it was necessary to use proprietry software then I'd agree. But Linux is an option. So is BSD. So are various other operating systems. Given that there's no major harm in eliminating the closed source ones, why make an exception?
I was really talking about the standard of science education in Britain. The subject has been gradually changing in this country for various political reasons. Sadly, the nation that produced Fleming, Newton and Darwin seems to have decided to rest on its laurels.
I mentioned a few other theories that people are less likely to argue with, including gravity and a rigid set of mathematical axioms to demonstrate how silly the "just a theory" argument is.
Now, can we add some physics to the physics lessons, and chemistry to chemistry lessons and make the science lessons about understanding the nature of the universe rather than waffling about why we "must" replace coal power stations with windfarms, and teach kids how to make chemicals that are fun to make?
Unexplained affluence (up to what point ? For some of us to have meat in the tomatoe sauce and the spaghetti was being rich)
Doesn't sound too unreasonable. If someone appears to have several hundred thousand dollars more than you might expect, it's at least worth looking into.
I'm sure the RIAA doesn't have any major problems with Mix-tapes, and have usually tolerated peopel giving these away. It's indiscriminate sharing of large numbers of files on P2P networks they sue over and the Bush Twins haven't been doing that.
If I give PhD quality reserach findings about Topic X and some slashdot a$$hole has a different (and commonly incorrect) opinion, suddenly I'm a fanboi.
I suspect the truth is that large OEMs really pay a trifling amount for Windows, and the saving from supplying Linux instead is so small that you might as well buy a Vista machine and wipe it.
That isn't what Fair Use is about. Fair use is about exceptions to copyright holders control. Copyright is about exceptions to a legal owner's control.
Copyright law restricts the owner of a copy from doing a number of things with a work. Anything that isn't explicitely restricted by copyright law is permitted. This is not fair use. This is a natural right. You can read the book you just bought. You can resell it.
Under copyright law, you may not copy it, at all. You can't even copy a small part of it under a strict interpretation. This is where fair use comes in. Fair use says that for a lot of purposes you are permitted to make copies. For example, I may wish to show people how voilent a film is. I can take a scene from it and broadcast it, and add my own commentary about how awful it is and how this scene demonstrates this (or how cool I think the gore is). They could threaten to sue. I would point out that my use was for criticism, and is a tiny part of the whole that will not displace sales and therefore my broadcast is Fair Use. If they wanted to press the point they would take it to court, and try to demonstrate that my use is a breach of copyright and that my fair use defence is invalid (and probably lose in this case). It may turn out that I'm unable to get hold of a legal copy, and if I can't, they have no obligation to assist.
Can you even play a music CD with others in the room?
Yes
Without Fair Use, the answer to all of these would be NO.
No it wouldn't. None of these uses count as public performances, broadcasts or copies.
Fair use means that you retain the right to make copies for a number of reasons. It is not a right in itself. It's a limitation of rights of the copyright holder. i.e. if they sue you, fair use is a defence.
The Jukebox makes it more convenient to have a lbrary of DVDs. That is the main reason people buy it. Are they really suggesting that a significant number of people will go to the effort of buying one of these just so that they can then resell the DVD? And even if they do, it's a maximum possible loss of one sale of each DVD the jukebox owner buys.
I've bought the software (note - this is a lie; there's no way I'm going to buy Vista any time soon). Microsoft has made their money. They should stop telling me how I can use it.
This is why I like free software. I'm treated as the owner.
Dude. If one of my engineers started scrawling "DO NOT BE EVIL" on the office walls, I'd send for a psychiatrist. Probably an exorcist as well.
I take it your company is as successful as Google.:)
And yes, I'm being facetious. I well aware that it's possible Google can afford to hire eccentrics because they're successful rather than them being successful because they hire eccentrics.
Sorry, but anyone who chooses to work for the IRS is also a jerk in my eyes.
Do you feel the same way about the people who live off the money the IRS collects as well? People like US soldiers, those people who build roads, and the Justice department? Taxation is unpleasant, but it's justifiable.
How do you feel about the IRS ruining boxer Joe Louis' life?
Why blame the IRS? They were obliged to collect the taxes. The government didn't make Armed forces donations deductable. If the IRS wanted to there was no way they could let him off. I'd hate to seee a situation where the IRS is allowed to make judgement calls based on whether or not they like someone.
No. It's a jerk being shown how the victims of his pigheadedness feel.
If he felt the tax was unjust, he has every right to lodge a legal challenge, or if he really wants to, refuse to pay and go to jail. The IRS will treat him in the same way afterwards if he does that.
A few hundred, even a few thousand geeks who want to buy laptops with Linux are not going to be worth it to a big company like Dell.
No, but smaller companies sell laptops. A few thousand to them would be very worthwhile. That and not-for-profits who might have their entire network running on free software.
Considering they're only making tiny margins on the machines to begin with, the amount they'd have to spend on training new support staff alone would be massive.
We can assume that those who want Linux are going to be reasonably competent and not need handholding. Tech support is not essential to everyone.
With all of the companies out there making laptops, if NOBODY is offering say, Ubuntu on a laptop, then there's a good reason for that. The competition in the PC market is fierce, and I guarantee that if there were a nickel to be made, somebody would be doing it.
I don't accept that "Nobody's doing it" is a good reason not to do it. Many people have become rich precisely because they had the courage to do exactly what everybody else is not doing.
There are problems for existing laptop manufacturers. They have a bulk licence agreement from MS based on the number of laptops they sell, rather than the number of Windows laptops they sell. You would need to start a company from scratch, and that's high risk, but there is a potential for profit.
Why are there so few laptop companies making laptops only for other operating systems? There's certainly a demand for this, and there's hardly any competition in that sector. There have to be enough potential customers to keep the company afloat, and the free advertising they'd get on sites like Slashdot would be well worth the money.
AMD's core business is chip design. Manufacturing is a cost for them, but the core business of lots of other companies, who have a great incentive to invesst in better production capabilities. The x86 clone makers aren't the only people who want high speed chips. It's no differnt from airlines outsourcing the manufacture of their planes. Process improvements and debugging is cheaper per fab if you have a lot of them.
Does it? It would suck having a processor design finalized and not being able to fab it while factories are overhauled
The deals are made pretty far in advance. And there is always going to be someone willing to take AMD's cash in exchange for fabbing. It really shouldn't be a problem. Most microchip companies outsource this to some extent. Even some of the ones with their own fabs will use one of the big Asian companies for a lot of their chips.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was necessary to use proprietry software then I'd agree. But Linux is an option. So is BSD. So are various other operating systems. Given that there's no major harm in eliminating the closed source ones, why make an exception?
I was really talking about the standard of science education in Britain. The subject has been gradually changing in this country for various political reasons. Sadly, the nation that produced Fleming, Newton and Darwin seems to have decided to rest on its laurels.
Yes, I know. It was irony.
I mentioned a few other theories that people are less likely to argue with, including gravity and a rigid set of mathematical axioms to demonstrate how silly the "just a theory" argument is.
Like heliocentrism, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and set theory, Evolution is just a theory!
As we all know, the conjunction of two sets is determined by God and depends on how God feels at the time.
Now, can we add some physics to the physics lessons, and chemistry to chemistry lessons and make the science lessons about understanding the nature of the universe rather than waffling about why we "must" replace coal power stations with windfarms, and teach kids how to make chemicals that are fun to make?
Unexplained affluence (up to what point ? For some of us to have meat in the tomatoe sauce and the spaghetti was being rich)
Doesn't sound too unreasonable. If someone appears to have several hundred thousand dollars more than you might expect, it's at least worth looking into.
I think they see a difference between large scale distribution and giving a single mix tape.
I'm sure the RIAA doesn't have any major problems with Mix-tapes, and have usually tolerated peopel giving these away. It's indiscriminate sharing of large numbers of files on P2P networks they sue over and the Bush Twins haven't been doing that.
If I give PhD quality reserach findings about Topic X and some slashdot a$$hole has a different (and commonly incorrect) opinion, suddenly I'm a fanboi.
If it helps, this is a well known phenonemon.
True.
I suspect the truth is that large OEMs really pay a trifling amount for Windows, and the saving from supplying Linux instead is so small that you might as well buy a Vista machine and wipe it.
That isn't what Fair Use is about. Fair use is about exceptions to copyright holders control. Copyright is about exceptions to a legal owner's control.
Copyright law restricts the owner of a copy from doing a number of things with a work. Anything that isn't explicitely restricted by copyright law is permitted. This is not fair use. This is a natural right. You can read the book you just bought. You can resell it.
Under copyright law, you may not copy it, at all. You can't even copy a small part of it under a strict interpretation. This is where fair use comes in. Fair use says that for a lot of purposes you are permitted to make copies. For example, I may wish to show people how voilent a film is. I can take a scene from it and broadcast it, and add my own commentary about how awful it is and how this scene demonstrates this (or how cool I think the gore is). They could threaten to sue. I would point out that my use was for criticism, and is a tiny part of the whole that will not displace sales and therefore my broadcast is Fair Use. If they wanted to press the point they would take it to court, and try to demonstrate that my use is a breach of copyright and that my fair use defence is invalid (and probably lose in this case). It may turn out that I'm unable to get hold of a legal copy, and if I can't, they have no obligation to assist.
If you buy a book, can you lend it to a friend?
Yes.
Can you invite you friends over to watch a DVD?
Yes
Can you donate your unwanted books to a library?
Yes
Can you even play a music CD with others in the room?
Yes
Without Fair Use, the answer to all of these would be NO.
No it wouldn't. None of these uses count as public performances, broadcasts or copies.
Fair use means that you retain the right to make copies for a number of reasons. It is not a right in itself. It's a limitation of rights of the copyright holder. i.e. if they sue you, fair use is a defence.
Fair use is not a right. It's a defence to copyright infringement.
The Jukebox makes it more convenient to have a lbrary of DVDs. That is the main reason people buy it. Are they really suggesting that a significant number of people will go to the effort of buying one of these just so that they can then resell the DVD? And even if they do, it's a maximum possible loss of one sale of each DVD the jukebox owner buys.
I've bought the software (note - this is a lie; there's no way I'm going to buy Vista any time soon). Microsoft has made their money. They should stop telling me how I can use it.
This is why I like free software. I'm treated as the owner.
Dude. If one of my engineers started scrawling "DO NOT BE EVIL" on the office walls, I'd send for a psychiatrist. Probably an exorcist as well.
:)
I take it your company is as successful as Google.
And yes, I'm being facetious. I well aware that it's possible Google can afford to hire eccentrics because they're successful rather than them being successful because they hire eccentrics.
Sorry, but anyone who chooses to work for the IRS is also a jerk in my eyes.
Do you feel the same way about the people who live off the money the IRS collects as well? People like US soldiers, those people who build roads, and the Justice department? Taxation is unpleasant, but it's justifiable.
How do you feel about the IRS ruining boxer Joe Louis' life?
Why blame the IRS? They were obliged to collect the taxes. The government didn't make Armed forces donations deductable. If the IRS wanted to there was no way they could let him off. I'd hate to seee a situation where the IRS is allowed to make judgement calls based on whether or not they like someone.
No. It's a jerk being shown how the victims of his pigheadedness feel.
If he felt the tax was unjust, he has every right to lodge a legal challenge, or if he really wants to, refuse to pay and go to jail. The IRS will treat him in the same way afterwards if he does that.
He probably just unwrapped the rolls first.
My argument was that income is only taxable if you have one. The multi-millionaire Wesley Snipes has an income.
Is there a single person with no income who has had to pay income tax on it?
Income tax is totally voluntary!
Don't want to pay it, don't have an income. Sales tax, property taxes, and most other taxes are also voluntary in similar ways.
A few hundred, even a few thousand geeks who want to buy laptops with Linux are not going to be worth it to a big company like Dell.
No, but smaller companies sell laptops. A few thousand to them would be very worthwhile. That and not-for-profits who might have their entire network running on free software.
Considering they're only making tiny margins on the machines to begin with, the amount they'd have to spend on training new support staff alone would be massive.
We can assume that those who want Linux are going to be reasonably competent and not need handholding. Tech support is not essential to everyone.
With all of the companies out there making laptops, if NOBODY is offering say, Ubuntu on a laptop, then there's a good reason for that. The competition in the PC market is fierce, and I guarantee that if there were a nickel to be made, somebody would be doing it.
I don't accept that "Nobody's doing it" is a good reason not to do it. Many people have become rich precisely because they had the courage to do exactly what everybody else is not doing.
There are problems for existing laptop manufacturers. They have a bulk licence agreement from MS based on the number of laptops they sell, rather than the number of Windows laptops they sell. You would need to start a company from scratch, and that's high risk, but there is a potential for profit.
Why are there so few laptop companies making laptops only for other operating systems? There's certainly a demand for this, and there's hardly any competition in that sector. There have to be enough potential customers to keep the company afloat, and the free advertising they'd get on sites like Slashdot would be well worth the money.
AMD's core business is chip design. Manufacturing is a cost for them, but the core business of lots of other companies, who have a great incentive to invesst in better production capabilities. The x86 clone makers aren't the only people who want high speed chips. It's no differnt from airlines outsourcing the manufacture of their planes. Process improvements and debugging is cheaper per fab if you have a lot of them.
Does it? It would suck having a processor design finalized and not being able to fab it while factories are overhauled
The deals are made pretty far in advance. And there is always going to be someone willing to take AMD's cash in exchange for fabbing. It really shouldn't be a problem. Most microchip companies outsource this to some extent. Even some of the ones with their own fabs will use one of the big Asian companies for a lot of their chips.