Um, I hate to be the one to point this out, but this story is not about the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.
Nigeria, in it's infinite wisdom, chose not to participate in the OLPC project. Instead, they opted to go for the Intel Classmate PC, and were originally convinced to use a model supplied with Mandriva Linux and some fairly extensive regionalization and software customization developed and preloaded. I submit that it was this same customization which must have been the deciding factor in selecting this platform to begin with.
The issue at hand is that now, after they agreed to a initial contract for 17,000 units, they have suddenly and without any apparant rationale, decided to take delivery of this order as committed and then pay to have Microsoft Windows installed on every system. There has been no reasonable explanation put forward, either by the Nigerian Government, Microsoft or and third party as to why Nigeria would choose to incur the non-zero costs of acquisition and deployment of Windows on these systems.
It is not a matter of comparing the costs of Linux vs. Windows, as the cost of the Mandriva licenses are embedded in the acquisition and are thus a sunk cost. Even if Microsoft agreed to give away the Windows licenses for free, there would still be a costs to customize and install Windows on the 17,000 target machines. There is no way to get around the fact that this is a real, after-the-fact new cost that either the Nigerian Government is paying out of pocket (with no explanation to it's taxpayers as to the reason), or is being footed by Microsoft for some improper purpose (Microsoft shareholders are not in the business of thrid world charity). As well, there has been no discussion as to any possible customization and/or regionalization of the target platform (Classmate PC with Windows XP), much less any comparison to the work committed to by Mandriva.
Lest that last argument be discounted, allow me to argue that there is no demonstrable reason to have selected a Classmate PC running Mandriva for (or any other Linux) for $200 over the OLPC XO platform (with customized, pre-installed Linux) at $100 per unit, unless it has to do with the customization and/or suitability to task of the specific bundled platform. Please note that in his open letter, Francois clearly stated that this was an open process that Microsoft fought long and hard against, and still Mandriva managed to beat out both the Classmate + Windows and OLPC + Linux options, only to suffer a very odd reversal at the 11th hour.
If any Microsoft apologist here can invent a reasonable explanation for this situation, I suggest you save posting here and instead apply to Microsoft PR for an immediate position.
This also means that drug research will grind to a halt.
This is one of the most oft-hear lies in the whole patent debate. The fact is, pharmaceutical and biotehnology firms spend miniscule amounts on R&D relative to other factors (marketing, manufacturing, administration and profiteering). In fact, accorsing to the NIH, only about 18% of the drug industry's research budget goes to basic research for breakthrough drugs; sbout 82% goes to derivative innovations on existing drugs and to testing (while our patent system afford them the self-same protections).
If you believe in the power of a free market, then you should understand that the government should never be in a position of enforcing a monopoly, unless it somehow benefits society as a whole. In this case, the claim is made that patent monopoly protection "advances science and the useful arts". It is an accepted economic theory that any level of profit above break-even is significant incentive to pursure a course of action. If 10x investment is not enough profit motive, then I think you are misleading yourself about the nature of why we allow this sort of protection.
Ok, I agree that propping up is not the same as tearing down. I guess I should have been broader in my analysis. Let's see what happened in the case of each of the previous examples I mentioned:
1. ConAgra - Begun as a small Nebraska flour milling opertion, and through massive government subsidization and lack of oversight into leverages buyouts grew to be the largest supplier of packages food in North America.
2. MCI/Worldcom - Started out as a Long Distance reseller, grew through leveraged boyouts of everyone in sight, misappropriated US $11 billion from stockholders beforing going bankrupt, paying a mere $750 million i n restitution, and was then bailed out by being granted a no-bid contract by the Bush Administration to construct a wireless network in Iraq for, you guesed it, US$11 billion.
3. Enron - Let's see, buying government intervention to create an "open market" for electricity, then manipulating this market in CA and surrounding states, falsifying earnings, and lying to the SEC to make untold billions. All done with the implicit and/or explicit consent and assistance of state and federal governments.
4. Microsoft - Let's not even go there.
So much for the idea of "free market emergent monopolies", and/or the idea of independantly sustainable monopoly power in a truly free market. The government (and by this I primarily refer to US federal and state governments) have helped to create, sustain and defend these modern robber-barons because it helps line their electoral coffers.
As with most things in life, if you want the truth, you have to follow the money...
Nice summary. However, I have to disagree with your example of Microsoft as a monopoly that has not been propped up by the government. Need I remond you (or anyone else here) that while Microsoft may have gained their monopoly through the free market (sans any realistic regulation), they have been tried AND CONVICTED of maintaining and extending an illegal monopoly in bith the US and EU. It's only through the machinations of transparent greed and widespread corruption that the US DoG essentially gave up on enforcing their win against the evil emipre in Redmond.
How about we try using a better example - like ConAgra, or MCI/Worldcom, or Enron or... oh wait, neither "the free market" nor the government ever successfully prevented any of these companies from competing illegally or screwing over their customers and/or competitors. In fact, I would argue that there is clear evidence that over the past two decades, the major focus of American governments has been to dismantle regulatory frameworks, defang anti-trust and anti-competitive legislation, and to further entrench the legal protections afforded to incumbent large corporations. I specifically defy anyone here to provide concrete examples to the contrary.
Oh and yes I know, this is/. and I'm likely to get either patted on the back as a good anti-M$ basher or flamed for once again pointing out the horrors of the Microsoft way...
This is possibly the best example of the argument I favour in this issue.
You have managed to concisely outline the problem, and also relate it in layman's terms. My hat's off to you, sir. Also, if you will permit, I will be copying your email out to many of my friends and family so that they might better understand what I've been ranting on about for all these years.
Ok, look here Dave, this is getting silly. There are so many factual and logical errors in your statements, I hardly know where to begin. First off, ARAB != MUSLIM. Secondly, in the specific case you mentioned (Darfur), the conflict is between mostly Arab (Muslims) and non-Arab (Muslims). In fact, to quote for the very same article you used at Wikipedia:
Since 2003 it has been one of the principal actors in the increasingly bloody Darfur conflict, which has pitted the Arab-identified Sudanese against the non-Arab muslim population of the region.
In other words, this is not a religious war pitting militant Islam vs. any other religion.
For the record, I am an Indian-born, Hindu-raised, Canadian athiest so NONE of this is relevant to me personally except for your obvious butchery of knowledge, reason and logic. In case the point was lost, this is exactly why the world disagrees with Americans about virtually everything.
Ok, you seriously haven't given this a second thought (or even a proper first one, for that matter).
The reason it takes a while for shower water to reach your preferred temperature has NOTHING TO DO with the supply side, it is a side effect of the delivery infrastructure. In short, the lengths of water supply pipes leading from your cold water supply and hot water tank are always full or water, but at some non-source temperature (i.e. cold water line too warm, hot water line too cold). Once the water begins to flow, new (proper temperature) source water enters the system and eventually makes it to your shower, where the intermix ratio is set (by you, either manually or through some fancy contraption) to deliver the final correct temperature shower output.
The only real solutions to this are:
1. Constant recirculation systems. Basically, keep the water in your pipes constantly moving through a cyclical system that feeds back through controlled hot and/or cold water reservoirs. This would ensure the the water at any delivery port (aka. tap) in the house was close to the actualy controlled reservoir temperature (allowing, of course, for systemic loss in the delivery system). The problem with this system is of course the exceptionally high cost of keeping all of the water constantly heated and/or cooled.
2. At-sink water heating. This is used very commonly in Europe and some develiping countries where hot water tanks were never in fashion. Basically, you use a high-efficiency water heater (electric or natural gas, usually) plumbed in to your system JUST BEFORE the delivery tap. When you turn on the tap, the system receives input (cold) water from the mains, and it is heated instantaneously just before the water is delivered out to your tap. There are even systems that do this for a whole house, but in your case you only case about the shower;-).
Of course, I do like your flat-panel digital temperature control idea, but that's just a gadget to replace the fine analog mixing system all taps already have with a complex and expensive, motorized and electronically controlled version of the EXACT SAME THING! It won't solve your basic problem, which these solution both will. I hope that helps a bit. For more information, call your nearest certified plumber.
Hmmm, I wonder if you would grace us with a few ACTUAL agrements in favour of this. Your "hundreds of thousands" of customers pales by comparison to the installed based on Linux - you should have tried the "supported commercial applications" argument first.
Anyways, the day someone from Sun actually produces a definitive list of things Solaris does better than Linux (and please don't say stuff like "our NFS is better than your NFS, nya nya nya") os the day I will systematically go through them and debunk the mythos. IF Sun is so great at writing sode, they why did they adopt GNOME and buy OpenOffice? Sun hasn't ben a leader in OS design since I was in university!
Hey Aum!
Well, I have met with them here at a pretty senior level, and I would say that despite best intentions, Sun Canada at least really IS this dumb!
Keeping Solaris on life support for a "few years" in as stupid as Novell not wanting to do in NetWare for the sake of UnixWare. Why acquire the license for SysV if you're not gonna use it - oh wait, that was SCO's strategy too, wasn't it. Any chance the AT&T codebase is actually cursed in some way?!?
And don't even get me started on the stupidity of the Sun "keep it closely guarded so no one ever uses it" Java and ONE arguments. Open used to me something more than "for enough $$$, we will try to make it work on another platform, but you really should just buy our stuff in the first place".
Hmmm, and it's a real wonder none of these companies ever really grok'ed the Internet...
Hmm, I wonder if anyone here can detect the cycle here:
Sun/SGI/HP/IBM all make big, expensive, customized Un*x-based platforms, that are huge cash-cows for a long time and get people to buy in on the promise of "open standards" while all the while working to "differentiate" their platform enough to keep customers from switching.
Meanwhile, IBM hedged it's bets on a low-end platform cooked up in Boca Raton with a crappy OS and a ridiculous licensing deal with some kid out of Seattle.
Ten years later, the gloss is starting to fade on the Un*x side (mostly due to lack of innovation broughht about by lack of real standards and a serious lack of competition) while the PC side is about to get into the fast track with 32-bit CPUs and a REAL OS co-written by IBM and the slimeballs from upstate Washington.
On the other side of the planet, a smart young CS student is whipping up a bit of the ole black magic, and with a little help from some GNU friends, will soon unleash the original Unix concept back onto the masses (Portability - what portability? This is UNIX my boy!).
Another ten years pass, the PC is ruling the roost once M$ screwed IBM, and the big Un*x guys are all searching high and low for a raison d'etre. The smart ones (read: IBM?!?) figure out that the kid from Finland was really on to something, and they'll never have to pay Redmond a damn cent for it, so they go whole hog. Those that keep fighting, start to die the slow death of ignorant luddites (can you say SGI boys and girls -- I knew you could! Gee, I wonder where 3Dfx and nVidia got all those engineers from!)
Ok, so who's still left out of our wrap up? SCO, who's failed attempt to corner the market on Un*x on Intel (haha, Open Server my A$$!)? Looks like tricky lawyering is truly the last bastion of the dying corporation (right up there with sneaky accounting tricks 101 on the VC Top 10 list).
What about poor Sun, who went from knowing the network was the computer before there even was a network, to being the dot in some dumbass VC plan, to being a wishy-washy half-way cover-our-asses supporter of all thing not-M$. Geez, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but Larry E? Come on guys. And now this? Forget the purple PC, and forget the Slowlaris "better TCO and long term stability" crap and contribute what you have to the one true Open movement - Open Source! IF Sun spent 1/4 of the $$$ they have on FUDding Slowlaris vs. Linux on porting theyr fantastic sh*t to Linux, they could be a real force to be reckoned with (hello IBM? Wannt do the enemry-of-my thing?).
All I know is they all better watch out, because once the Chinese start mass-producing cluster machines made with Godson-2's onto 1U racks running Linux, the game's up for those who would be king!
Um, actually you're NOT allowed to do that. I think you need to look up the meaning of "clean room development" or perhaps "chinese wall" if you're gonna try tricks like this. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that lookign at someone else's code, and they "rollign your own" absed on that knowledge, is infringing on their copywritten work.
Sorry, but plagurism ist verboten, nien just for verbatim copyin!
Simply stated, what is your reaction to the Eldred v. Ashcroft decision. How do you think it will affect the legal climate for furthering the position of Free Software? Is this really and indication, as Mr. Lessig has noted, that any hope of the US government developing a more generous and insightful public policy position on the future of IP rights is effectivly on hold? What, if anything, can be done to further this cause other than writing to Congress and/or supporting the EFF?
Ok, since you asked nicely, let's go for a stroll down regulatory way.
And since we're being clear for the record, IANAL as well, but I
am a student of the law. If it matters, I am also not American
(Go Canada!), but why forum shop when it's so much easier to just play
in your backyard? So, on we go:
Fair Use was originally a judicially created doctrine, created when the
bench ruled in Sony Corp. of Am. v.
Universal City Studios, Inc., 464
U.S. 417 (1984) that "Any individual may reproduce a
copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess
the exclusive right to such a use." Such doctrine was later
incorporated directly into the Copyright Act of 1976, through 17 U.S.C. 107 to include the following
provisions:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106a, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a
work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered
shall include -
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
"The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the
above factors."
So basically, the court finds it has the right to limit the exclusive
rights of the copyright owner in many cases. In later rulings
such as RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia
Systems, Inc., 98-56727
(1999) the court has held that "[t]he Rio merely makes copies in
order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already
reside on a user's hard drive. Such copying is paradigmatic
noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the
Act." Further, under 17 U.S.C. 1008, Congress made
such exclusions specific:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the
noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making
digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
So, basically, if you own it alredy or if your use is noncommercial in
nature, you are ableto exercise your fair use rights in the production
of a digital copy. Not that this has anything to do with the GPL
- but hopefully, Castle will give us all an opportunity to finally have
a ruling from the bench on a legal enforceability of a copyleft
doctrine.
Ok, to begin with you've managed somehow to completely misunderstand that the spirit of the GPL is to produce a COPYLEFT - in other words, it exists as a product of ridiculous copyright laws in a attempt to circumvent them through their own application (that's why MS likes to call it viral).
In any event, the comparison is obviously flawed because in the case of GPL code theft, you're talking about someone knowingly violating the license under which they acquired a product in order to PROFIT from a derivative product.
Most 14-year olds who pirate MP3s and DVDs are interested in FAIR USE of the products in question, or at worse in depriving the copyright owners of proceeds that they could have directly collected. I have not hear of any real cases where gangs of 14-years old pirates have set-up conterfeit CD and DVD rings to sell the products on FOR PROFIT. If you really doubt this, just ask the P2P companies when their huge profits fro residuals are gonna start rolling in.
Amazing how hard it is to see right from left, huh?
Hmmm, ok since you're AC'ign I grant you the assumption that you're being purposefully dense instead of just truly clueless.
Yes, you can make godo things without free software, but if you can;t then you are NOT allowed to steal free code to complete your product and then violate the license under which you got the free code in the first place. If you want the ability to protect you own creations, you have to respect others rights to do the same.
As for understanding with the GPL does and does not allow, I think it very clear. If you don't think so, either take an advanced coruse in engligh, or hire a lawyer to decode it for you. In either event, I'm sure you'll soon understand that you can do all of the about things, as long as you make the code you've created freely available to anyone who asks you for it. It's really just that simple.
Ok seriously, does anyone actually RTFA before posting this stuff? And we quote:
"...Andersen's new entrant, which isn't for sale yet, is a bay window that doubles as a home entertainment center. A low-voltage electric current runs through the window. When the current is on, the window is clear. But flip a switch to turn the current off and the glass goes opaque, allowing it to be used as a projection screen for watching television or DVDs."
This seriously has NOTHING to do with being a multimedia windowpane and is simply a company grasping at reasons why people should but LCD-blanking windows, which cost a fortune to buy and to operate (you did follow that "uses low voltage current to stay open" discussion, right?).
Well, the best read I've had since Tolkien has been the Wheel of Time series:
Book I - The Eye of the World Book II - The Great Hunt Book III - The Dragon Reborn Book IV - The Shadow Rising Book V - The Fires of Heaven Book VI - Lord of Chaos Book VII - A Crown of Swords Book VIII - The Path of Daggers Book IX - Winter's Heart
Other perrenial SF/F favs include Douglas Adams (you have read all of the HHGttG right?) and Terry Pratchett (he's right, you really can't have more fun by yourself!).
Ok seriously, does anyone RTFA anymore? How about the comments? This is a clear PR stunt aimed at producing more leads for Marc's new company. And ZDnet, that fine bastion of even-handed IT reporting, has once again saved us all by printing only the relevant facts. Just once I'd liek to believe that one of my old IT heroes didn't sell out and become a corporate whore (can you say RMS anyone?).
Well, I wouldn't bet on it. DVD-A is a good idea for long term archival storage of music (very high quality, not lossy, etc). I know IBM didn't originate the DVD CSS and region coding schemes, and I doubt IBM were the ones who wanted it as part of the DVD-A spec, but since they aren't really a player in consumer electronics, the probably had to deal with the Toshiba's and Sony's of the world...
Just my $0.02!
Oh no, condoning piracy are we - geez, whatever has/. come to?
Seriously now, Mr. A.Coward, if you are trying to start a flame war about the relevance of IP laws and the real meaning and purpose of content "piracy" then this is definitely not the forum for it. On the other hand, if you're just trolling, then well, never mind...
Are you insane? This is just a silly cash grab at something that is FICTIONAL! What the hell - these people (and their slimy lawyers) need to get a life! You cannot make other people advertise for you. Now, if the producers of the movie had paid for the right to shoot that location, and specifically agreed not to digitally alter any content, then this would be a passably arguably point. As it, it's nothing shy of a mindless money-grubbing cheap shot!
This is a singularly silly argument. Whether the price is raised by the manufacturer (at the source), by the retailer (as point of sale), or by the government (via taxation), the cost to the end user still goes up, and thi is what will determine level of sales. OR do you seriously believe that raising the price of blank CDs by $0.59-$1.23 each will not result in lowered sales?
Ok, well I know this is just trollbait, but I guess I'm a little bored today.
First of all, your PIF is completely off base. Even *you* clearly recignize that this practice of in-store favoritism is wrong: "In the end we almost always caved to the vendor for fear of losing a product that made significant revenue." So, just because you caved, doesn't make this practice *legal*.
As to the issue of scale, I think the truth is that your store never sued the vendors out of fear of losing potential revenue, and not because they didn't know this practice was wrong. Also, the store probably couln't have afforded a long, drawn out legal udnertaking against a (likely) much larger and better funded software vendor.
Finally, as far as the issue of vendors suing other vendors, in fact I'm almost positive that this kind of suit would have occured if you had advised the displaced vendors, and were willing to testify to that fact in court. But, once again, usually it's the smaller guy that get's bumped, and they can rarely afford the costs of litigation even when they're in the right.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, I hate to be the one to point this out, but this story is not about the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.
Nigeria, in it's infinite wisdom, chose not to participate in the OLPC project. Instead, they opted to go for the Intel Classmate PC, and were originally convinced to use a model supplied with Mandriva Linux and some fairly extensive regionalization and software customization developed and preloaded. I submit that it was this same customization which must have been the deciding factor in selecting this platform to begin with.
The issue at hand is that now, after they agreed to a initial contract for 17,000 units, they have suddenly and without any apparant rationale, decided to take delivery of this order as committed and then pay to have Microsoft Windows installed on every system. There has been no reasonable explanation put forward, either by the Nigerian Government, Microsoft or and third party as to why Nigeria would choose to incur the non-zero costs of acquisition and deployment of Windows on these systems.
It is not a matter of comparing the costs of Linux vs. Windows, as the cost of the Mandriva licenses are embedded in the acquisition and are thus a sunk cost. Even if Microsoft agreed to give away the Windows licenses for free, there would still be a costs to customize and install Windows on the 17,000 target machines. There is no way to get around the fact that this is a real, after-the-fact new cost that either the Nigerian Government is paying out of pocket (with no explanation to it's taxpayers as to the reason), or is being footed by Microsoft for some improper purpose (Microsoft shareholders are not in the business of thrid world charity). As well, there has been no discussion as to any possible customization and/or regionalization of the target platform (Classmate PC with Windows XP), much less any comparison to the work committed to by Mandriva.
Lest that last argument be discounted, allow me to argue that there is no demonstrable reason to have selected a Classmate PC running Mandriva for (or any other Linux) for $200 over the OLPC XO platform (with customized, pre-installed Linux) at $100 per unit, unless it has to do with the customization and/or suitability to task of the specific bundled platform. Please note that in his open letter, Francois clearly stated that this was an open process that Microsoft fought long and hard against, and still Mandriva managed to beat out both the Classmate + Windows and OLPC + Linux options, only to suffer a very odd reversal at the 11th hour.
If any Microsoft apologist here can invent a reasonable explanation for this situation, I suggest you save posting here and instead apply to Microsoft PR for an immediate position.
Sorry, but I just couldn't let this one go:
This also means that drug research will grind to a halt.
This is one of the most oft-hear lies in the whole patent debate. The fact is, pharmaceutical and biotehnology firms spend miniscule amounts on R&D relative to other factors (marketing, manufacturing, administration and profiteering). In fact, accorsing to the NIH, only about 18% of the drug industry's research budget goes to basic research for breakthrough drugs; sbout 82% goes to derivative innovations on existing drugs and to testing (while our patent system afford them the self-same protections).
If you believe in the power of a free market, then you should understand that the government should never be in a position of enforcing a monopoly, unless it somehow benefits society as a whole. In this case, the claim is made that patent monopoly protection "advances science and the useful arts". It is an accepted economic theory that any level of profit above break-even is significant incentive to pursure a course of action. If 10x investment is not enough profit motive, then I think you are misleading yourself about the nature of why we allow this sort of protection.
Ok, I agree that propping up is not the same as tearing down. I guess I should have been broader in my analysis. Let's see what happened in the case of each of the previous examples I mentioned:
1. ConAgra - Begun as a small Nebraska flour milling opertion, and through massive government subsidization and lack of oversight into leverages buyouts grew to be the largest supplier of packages food in North America.
2. MCI/Worldcom - Started out as a Long Distance reseller, grew through leveraged boyouts of everyone in sight, misappropriated US $11 billion from stockholders beforing going bankrupt, paying a mere $750 million i n restitution, and was then bailed out by being granted a no-bid contract by the Bush Administration to construct a wireless network in Iraq for, you guesed it, US$11 billion.
3. Enron - Let's see, buying government intervention to create an "open market" for electricity, then manipulating this market in CA and surrounding states, falsifying earnings, and lying to the SEC to make untold billions. All done with the implicit and/or explicit consent and assistance of state and federal governments.
4. Microsoft - Let's not even go there.
So much for the idea of "free market emergent monopolies", and/or the idea of independantly sustainable monopoly power in a truly free market. The government (and by this I primarily refer to US federal and state governments) have helped to create, sustain and defend these modern robber-barons because it helps line their electoral coffers.
As with most things in life, if you want the truth, you have to follow the money...
Nice summary. However, I have to disagree with your example of Microsoft as a monopoly that has not been propped up by the government. Need I remond you (or anyone else here) that while Microsoft may have gained their monopoly through the free market (sans any realistic regulation), they have been tried AND CONVICTED of maintaining and extending an illegal monopoly in bith the US and EU. It's only through the machinations of transparent greed and widespread corruption that the US DoG essentially gave up on enforcing their win against the evil emipre in Redmond.
... oh wait, neither "the free market" nor the government ever successfully prevented any of these companies from competing illegally or screwing over their customers and/or competitors. In fact, I would argue that there is clear evidence that over the past two decades, the major focus of American governments has been to dismantle regulatory frameworks, defang anti-trust and anti-competitive legislation, and to further entrench the legal protections afforded to incumbent large corporations. I specifically defy anyone here to provide concrete examples to the contrary.
/. and I'm likely to get either patted on the back as a good anti-M$ basher or flamed for once again pointing out the horrors of the Microsoft way...
How about we try using a better example - like ConAgra, or MCI/Worldcom, or Enron or
Oh and yes I know, this is
This is possibly the best example of the argument I favour in this issue.
You have managed to concisely outline the problem, and also relate it in layman's terms. My hat's off to you, sir. Also, if you will permit, I will be copying your email out to many of my friends and family so that they might better understand what I've been ranting on about for all these years.
Thanks again!
Wow, that post is just fishing for a good K-Fed joke. But I digress...
Ok, look here Dave, this is getting silly. There are so many factual and logical errors in your statements, I hardly know where to begin. First off, ARAB != MUSLIM. Secondly, in the specific case you mentioned (Darfur), the conflict is between mostly Arab (Muslims) and non-Arab (Muslims). In fact, to quote for the very same article you used at Wikipedia:
Since 2003 it has been one of the principal actors in the increasingly bloody Darfur conflict, which has pitted the Arab-identified Sudanese against the non-Arab muslim population of the region.
In other words, this is not a religious war pitting militant Islam vs. any other religion.
For the record, I am an Indian-born, Hindu-raised, Canadian athiest so NONE of this is relevant to me personally except for your obvious butchery of knowledge, reason and logic. In case the point was lost, this is exactly why the world disagrees with Americans about virtually everything.
Ok, you seriously haven't given this a second thought (or even a proper first one, for that matter).
;-).
The reason it takes a while for shower water to reach your preferred temperature has NOTHING TO DO with the supply side, it is a side effect of the delivery infrastructure. In short, the lengths of water supply pipes leading from your cold water supply and hot water tank are always full or water, but at some non-source temperature (i.e. cold water line too warm, hot water line too cold). Once the water begins to flow, new (proper temperature) source water enters the system and eventually makes it to your shower, where the intermix ratio is set (by you, either manually or through some fancy contraption) to deliver the final correct temperature shower output.
The only real solutions to this are:
1. Constant recirculation systems. Basically, keep the water in your pipes constantly moving through a cyclical system that feeds back through controlled hot and/or cold water reservoirs. This would ensure the the water at any delivery port (aka. tap) in the house was close to the actualy controlled reservoir temperature (allowing, of course, for systemic loss in the delivery system). The problem with this system is of course the exceptionally high cost of keeping all of the water constantly heated and/or cooled.
2. At-sink water heating. This is used very commonly in Europe and some develiping countries where hot water tanks were never in fashion. Basically, you use a high-efficiency water heater (electric or natural gas, usually) plumbed in to your system JUST BEFORE the delivery tap. When you turn on the tap, the system receives input (cold) water from the mains, and it is heated instantaneously just before the water is delivered out to your tap. There are even systems that do this for a whole house, but in your case you only case about the shower
Of course, I do like your flat-panel digital temperature control idea, but that's just a gadget to replace the fine analog mixing system all taps already have with a complex and expensive, motorized and electronically controlled version of the EXACT SAME THING! It won't solve your basic problem, which these solution both will. I hope that helps a bit. For more information, call your nearest certified plumber.
Very good, can you say smoking gun???
Hmmm, I wonder if you would grace us with a few ACTUAL agrements in favour of this. Your "hundreds of thousands" of customers pales by comparison to the installed based on Linux - you should have tried the "supported commercial applications" argument first.
Anyways, the day someone from Sun actually produces a definitive list of things Solaris does better than Linux (and please don't say stuff like "our NFS is better than your NFS, nya nya nya") os the day I will systematically go through them and debunk the mythos. IF Sun is so great at writing sode, they why did they adopt GNOME and buy OpenOffice? Sun hasn't ben a leader in OS design since I was in university!
Hey Aum! Well, I have met with them here at a pretty senior level, and I would say that despite best intentions, Sun Canada at least really IS this dumb! Keeping Solaris on life support for a "few years" in as stupid as Novell not wanting to do in NetWare for the sake of UnixWare. Why acquire the license for SysV if you're not gonna use it - oh wait, that was SCO's strategy too, wasn't it. Any chance the AT&T codebase is actually cursed in some way?!? And don't even get me started on the stupidity of the Sun "keep it closely guarded so no one ever uses it" Java and ONE arguments. Open used to me something more than "for enough $$$, we will try to make it work on another platform, but you really should just buy our stuff in the first place". Hmmm, and it's a real wonder none of these companies ever really grok'ed the Internet...
Hmm, I wonder if anyone here can detect the cycle here:
Sun/SGI/HP/IBM all make big, expensive, customized Un*x-based platforms, that are huge cash-cows for a long time and get people to buy in on the promise of "open standards" while all the while working to "differentiate" their platform enough to keep customers from switching.
Meanwhile, IBM hedged it's bets on a low-end platform cooked up in Boca Raton with a crappy OS and a ridiculous licensing deal with some kid out of Seattle.
Ten years later, the gloss is starting to fade on the Un*x side (mostly due to lack of innovation broughht about by lack of real standards and a serious lack of competition) while the PC side is about to get into the fast track with 32-bit CPUs and a REAL OS co-written by IBM and the slimeballs from upstate Washington.
On the other side of the planet, a smart young CS student is whipping up a bit of the ole black magic, and with a little help from some GNU friends, will soon unleash the original Unix concept back onto the masses (Portability - what portability? This is UNIX my boy!).
Another ten years pass, the PC is ruling the roost once M$ screwed IBM, and the big Un*x guys are all searching high and low for a raison d'etre. The smart ones (read: IBM?!?) figure out that the kid from Finland was really on to something, and they'll never have to pay Redmond a damn cent for it, so they go whole hog. Those that keep fighting, start to die the slow death of ignorant luddites (can you say SGI boys and girls -- I knew you could! Gee, I wonder where 3Dfx and nVidia got all those engineers from!)
Ok, so who's still left out of our wrap up? SCO, who's failed attempt to corner the market on Un*x on Intel (haha, Open Server my A$$!)? Looks like tricky lawyering is truly the last bastion of the dying corporation (right up there with sneaky accounting tricks 101 on the VC Top 10 list).
What about poor Sun, who went from knowing the network was the computer before there even was a network, to being the dot in some dumbass VC plan, to being a wishy-washy half-way cover-our-asses supporter of all thing not-M$. Geez, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but Larry E? Come on guys. And now this? Forget the purple PC, and forget the Slowlaris "better TCO and long term stability" crap and contribute what you have to the one true Open movement - Open Source! IF Sun spent 1/4 of the $$$ they have on FUDding Slowlaris vs. Linux on porting theyr fantastic sh*t to Linux, they could be a real force to be reckoned with (hello IBM? Wannt do the enemry-of-my thing?).
All I know is they all better watch out, because once the Chinese start mass-producing cluster machines made with Godson-2's onto 1U racks running Linux, the game's up for those who would be king!
Just my $0.02...YMMV
Um, actually you're NOT allowed to do that. I think you need to look up the meaning of "clean room development" or perhaps "chinese wall" if you're gonna try tricks like this. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that lookign at someone else's code, and they "rollign your own" absed on that knowledge, is infringing on their copywritten work.
Sorry, but plagurism ist verboten, nien just for verbatim copyin!
Sir,
Simply stated, what is your reaction to the Eldred v. Ashcroft decision. How do you think it will affect the legal climate for furthering the position of Free Software? Is this really and indication, as Mr. Lessig has noted, that any hope of the US government developing a more generous and insightful public policy position on the future of IP rights is effectivly on hold? What, if anything, can be done to further this cause other than writing to Congress and/or supporting the EFF?
Fair Use was originally a judicially created doctrine, created when the bench ruled in Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) that "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." Such doctrine was later incorporated directly into the Copyright Act of 1976, through 17 U.S.C. 107 to include the following provisions:
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
"The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
So basically, the court finds it has the right to limit the exclusive rights of the copyright owner in many cases. In later rulings such as RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 98-56727 (1999) the court has held that "[t]he Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act." Further, under 17 U.S.C. 1008, Congress made such exclusions specific:"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
So, basically, if you own it alredy or if your use is noncommercial in nature, you are ableto exercise your fair use rights in the production of a digital copy. Not that this has anything to do with the GPL - but hopefully, Castle will give us all an opportunity to finally have a ruling from the bench on a legal enforceability of a copyleft doctrine.
Ok, to begin with you've managed somehow to completely misunderstand that the spirit of the GPL is to produce a COPYLEFT - in other words, it exists as a product of ridiculous copyright laws in a attempt to circumvent them through their own application (that's why MS likes to call it viral).
In any event, the comparison is obviously flawed because in the case of GPL code theft, you're talking about someone knowingly violating the license under which they acquired a product in order to PROFIT from a derivative product.
Most 14-year olds who pirate MP3s and DVDs are interested in FAIR USE of the products in question, or at worse in depriving the copyright owners of proceeds that they could have directly collected. I have not hear of any real cases where gangs of 14-years old pirates have set-up conterfeit CD and DVD rings to sell the products on FOR PROFIT. If you really doubt this, just ask the P2P companies when their huge profits fro residuals are gonna start rolling in.
Amazing how hard it is to see right from left, huh?
Hmmm, ok since you're AC'ign I grant you the assumption that you're being purposefully dense instead of just truly clueless.
Yes, you can make godo things without free software, but if you can;t then you are NOT allowed to steal free code to complete your product and then violate the license under which you got the free code in the first place. If you want the ability to protect you own creations, you have to respect others rights to do the same.
As for understanding with the GPL does and does not allow, I think it very clear. If you don't think so, either take an advanced coruse in engligh, or hire a lawyer to decode it for you. In either event, I'm sure you'll soon understand that you can do all of the about things, as long as you make the code you've created freely available to anyone who asks you for it. It's really just that simple.
Ok seriously, does anyone actually RTFA before posting this stuff? And we quote:
"...Andersen's new entrant, which isn't for sale yet, is a bay window that doubles as a home entertainment center. A low-voltage electric current runs through the window. When the current is on, the window is clear. But flip a switch to turn the current off and the glass goes opaque, allowing it to be used as a projection screen for watching television or DVDs."
This seriously has NOTHING to do with being a multimedia windowpane and is simply a company grasping at reasons why people should but LCD-blanking windows, which cost a fortune to buy and to operate (you did follow that "uses low voltage current to stay open" discussion, right?).
Well, the best read I've had since Tolkien has been the Wheel of Time series:
Book I - The Eye of the World
Book II - The Great Hunt
Book III - The Dragon Reborn
Book IV - The Shadow Rising
Book V - The Fires of Heaven
Book VI - Lord of Chaos
Book VII - A Crown of Swords
Book VIII - The Path of Daggers
Book IX - Winter's Heart
Other perrenial SF/F favs include Douglas Adams (you have read all of the HHGttG right?) and Terry Pratchett (he's right, you really can't have more fun by yourself!).
Just my $0.02...
Ok seriously, does anyone RTFA anymore? How about the comments? This is a clear PR stunt aimed at producing more leads for Marc's new company. And ZDnet, that fine bastion of even-handed IT reporting, has once again saved us all by printing only the relevant facts. Just once I'd liek to believe that one of my old IT heroes didn't sell out and become a corporate whore (can you say RMS anyone?).
Well, I wouldn't bet on it. DVD-A is a good idea for long term archival storage of music (very high quality, not lossy, etc). I know IBM didn't originate the DVD CSS and region coding schemes, and I doubt IBM were the ones who wanted it as part of the DVD-A spec, but since they aren't really a player in consumer electronics, the probably had to deal with the Toshiba's and Sony's of the world... Just my $0.02!
Oh no, condoning piracy are we - geez, whatever has /. come to?
Seriously now, Mr. A.Coward, if you are trying to start a flame war about the relevance of IP laws and the real meaning and purpose of content "piracy" then this is definitely not the forum for it. On the other hand, if you're just trolling, then well, never mind...
Are you insane? This is just a silly cash grab at something that is FICTIONAL! What the hell - these people (and their slimy lawyers) need to get a life! You cannot make other people advertise for you. Now, if the producers of the movie had paid for the right to shoot that location, and specifically agreed not to digitally alter any content, then this would be a passably arguably point. As it, it's nothing shy of a mindless money-grubbing cheap shot!
This is a singularly silly argument. Whether the price is raised by the manufacturer (at the source), by the retailer (as point of sale), or by the government (via taxation), the cost to the end user still goes up, and thi is what will determine level of sales. OR do you seriously believe that raising the price of blank CDs by $0.59-$1.23 each will not result in lowered sales?
Ok, well I know this is just trollbait, but I guess I'm a little bored today.
First of all, your PIF is completely off base. Even *you* clearly recignize that this practice of in-store favoritism is wrong: "In the end we almost always caved to the vendor for fear of losing a product that made significant revenue." So, just because you caved, doesn't make this practice *legal*.
As to the issue of scale, I think the truth is that your store never sued the vendors out of fear of losing potential revenue, and not because they didn't know this practice was wrong. Also, the store probably couln't have afforded a long, drawn out legal udnertaking against a (likely) much larger and better funded software vendor.
Finally, as far as the issue of vendors suing other vendors, in fact I'm almost positive that this kind of suit would have occured if you had advised the displaced vendors, and were willing to testify to that fact in court. But, once again, usually it's the smaller guy that get's bumped, and they can rarely afford the costs of litigation even when they're in the right.
'Nuff said.