That is assuming consumers truly need whatever that industry makes, and have no other means to come by it.
Yes, for inelastic industries the demand remains constant, but most industries aren't like that. Of course raising prices across the board will have less of an effect on a particular company than just that company raising prices, but usually there is still some effect.
This needs to be repeated over and over again because many people do not understand it.
Ok, now I'm not entirely sure here, but that might be because it's complete and total nonsense.
A corproation is a legal entity designed to make money.
That's right, the corporation is there to make money, not for the government to delegate taxes. There is a tax on making money, thus the corporation must pay taxes on the money that it makes.
When the government raises taxes on a corporation, the corporation has to make up for the higher costs.
Nonsense. When the government raises taxes on a corporation, the corporation's profit drops.
It does this by increasing the price of its products or services.
If the corporation wants its profits to remain unchanged by the increased taxes (which may not even be possible) it has to either increase revenue or decrease expenses.
One way of doing this is to raise the price of its products or services, but there's these tricky little supply and demand curves that can mess that up. You see, if you charge more for something, typically fewer people will buy it.
Since making money is the corporations business, they should be looking for the optimal price/demand level anyway. The only possible way that increasing prices could offset increased taxes without fail would be if corporate taxes had some effect on the demand of their product, which they don't.
That's a bit like having to know every street in a city to be able to go back and forth from home to work.
Hmm, well I guess it is...
There's no substitute for being able to find out EXACTLY what is being done.
Yes, but usually there's a lot of time wasted finding that out which could have been better spent if there were proper specifications and if those specs were met. And what happens if you expect code to work EXACTLY the way it does at one point in time, then it changes?
If the two sides are never allowed to see on the other side, there's a good chance it will never be fixed.
Ok, it would be useful to see the conditions that cause the code to fail to meet up with the documentation. Other than that, well obviously there has to be communication between developers, but not necessarily exchange of code.
Bought any bridges lately?
Yes, and I gotta tell ya, the shipping charges are outrageous!
If every programmer needs to understand every piece of code in the entire system, the size of systems that can be developed is severely restricted.
This is why there are defined interfaces between sections of code. You don't need the code behind the interface if the interface is fully documented.
If the code behind the interface doesn't match the documentation, it's not for you to fix. (ideally) Bugs fixed on the wrong end of the interface just causes more headaches when it eventually is fixed.
So if you can trust the other guy to fix discrepancies between code and documentation, you have no reason to need the source code. Closed source works fine if the developer will maintain responsibility for errors.
Just to be clear, all processors out there have bugs.
Now, it's not necessarily true that all processors have bugs. It's much the same as how you can have a "Hello World!" with no bugs a lot easier than you can have, say, an OS with no bugs. You could probably build an OISC processor with no bugs.
If the APIs are the same, is there any way I can trick a program written to use IE into using Gecko instead, without source? Something like replacing the CLSID number in the exe? This would be so wonderful...
As I understand it, the bug allows local files to be read into JavaScript variables, which can then be sent to the server.
Also, it has been fixed so future builds will not have this problem. (#141061: added to bugzilla on the 29th, fixed on the 30th, marked as fixed on the 1st)
NEC monitors seem to last a long time. I'm still using a 15" NEC MultiSync 3FGe that came with a 486 when we bought it new. Convergence at the upper-right and lower-left corners is slightly off, but otherwise it's as good as new.
It'd be nice if it had digital controls and higher resolution and refresh rates, but it still works great.
If their LCD monitors are as good, it's probably worth the extra cost. (or at least some of the extra cost, it's also a top of the line model.)
A number of people have had this idea and are pursuing it. It's not easy. You need to convince both the textbook authors and the colleges that this would be beneficial. (to them, not the students)
I didn't read your entire comment because you are obviously pushing what you're used to. There are two problems I can immediately point out with the "menus at the top of the screen" concept.
First, if you are not filling the rest of the screen with the current application, you are separating the work from the tools. If you have a window at the bottom of the screen, it makes sense to have the tools most appropriate to that window right down there with it. To use menus at the top of the screen, you must move your eyes completely away from what you are doing and look somewhere else. (context menus would be ideal, except that they are invisible)
Second, what is most efficient is not always the best. Apple originally recommended against including keyboard shortcuts because they are less efficient that using the menus. Users still wanted them. Efficiency is great, but user comfort is more important.
BTW, from a Fitt's law perspective menus at the top of the screen have infinite height where the mouse is concerned, but not the eyeballs. The "eyeball height" of a menu is the same regardless of where it is placed on the screen. A menu closer to where you are working will therefore be much easier for the eye to target.
But don't you see the beauty of the other side of the coin here?! Sure, you may have to pay royalties for the term of the patent, but when it expires, THIS SWINGING METHOD WILL BE IN PUBLIC RECORD!! So future generation will forever have the knowledge of SWINGING SIDEWAYS! Think of the implications! Think of the joy, the good of humanity!
if we link a GPL program against a BSD library, does that library become GPL?
You can't link a GPL program against a non-GPL library. They become one program as far as the GPL is concerned, and the whole must be GPL. afaik, the LGPL would allow this though.
You might be able to have two programs running in seperate threads and address spaces, one a BSD implementation of this and the other a GPL program which talks to the BSD one. The problem is that any way you can get around this, anyone else can use the same method to "cheat" the GPL so it might not be desirable.
Can anybody explain to me how Microsoft can allow BSD software to use their license while forbiding GPL? Since BSD software can be re-licensed under any other license (the property that MS likes), why couldn't it be re-licensed under the GPL. In other words, what would prevent me from writing a very small BSD program that just used the MS doc but doesn't really do anything useful, and then re-license it under the GPL.
The exact same thing that prevents you from licensing it under the GPL in the first place. The BSD program carries with it the additional restrictions imposed by Microsofts docs. It's BSD with patent (?) restrictions.
Or probably better, all the MS interoperation code could be put in a BSD library (since there'd be nothing innovative in that part, MS won't even bother) and then link all kinds of GPL programs to that library. Does that make sense?
As far as the GPL is concerned, anything linked to a GPLed program is a part of that program. So no, you couldn't do that. But if the program was LGPL, then it could be linked with the hypothetical BSD library. (I think... I haven't actually read the LGPL. uh, and IANAL, but that goes without saying.)
Re:Screw rebooting, there're other advantages
on
No More Rebooting?
·
· Score: 1
would be persistance, energy usage, and cost per unit.
*cough* ok, forget I mentioned persistance...:D
Re:Screw rebooting, there're other advantages
on
No More Rebooting?
·
· Score: 1
even surpass in speed, Hard Disk Drives
RAM today already surpasses hard drives in speed, that's why it's used as primary memory. According to the blurb: It also is considerably faster than current memory systems. So I think it's quite likely that it would be faster than hdd, the issue would be persistance, energy usage, and cost per unit.
I've been waiting for years for computers to become eletronic-only devices.
"electronic-only"? You mean "no dependence on magnetic feilds"? (no... the power supply'd still need those) Maybe "no moving parts", but on what scale? Liquid crystals rely on moving parts about the same as CRTs (vacuum tubes!) do. (unless you take offence to moving electrons?)
Re:Its no more a known fact than time travel
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 1
The dimensions of superstring theory are not the same as the dimensions of forked timelines. They're dimensions in the same sense as length, depth, and height (except, as I understand, rolled up into small "loops"). If there are forked timelines, each fork contains all of any superstring dimensions. Otherwise they have no relevance to eachother.
Or perhaps you are using a Mac? Mac IE does alpha transparency fine, and it is rumoured to be in general a much superior product to the Windows version.
PNG's alpha channel was never utilized because Microsoft never fully supported it. Variable transparency could be very useful except that it wouldn't work in the most commonly used browser.
Of course not, Microsoft likes the BSD license. First they get their TCPIP stack from it, next they'll get a fixed CIFS implementation from it.;)
I find it interesting that they won't let you use licenses which put specific restrictions on derivative works, but not ones which forbid distributing them altogether. Would a license worded "you may not distribute derivative works *unless* you blah blah" where blah blah is the stuff Microsoft doesn't like work? I mean strictly speaking it doesn't require those things, you have the option to not distribute your derivative at all. (which you, of course, have with the GPL, but since it's specifically named forget it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, how do you know it's not broken?
Exactly! The fan in my anchient P90 laptop has never turned on for this very reason.
That is assuming consumers truly need whatever that industry makes, and have no other means to come by it.
Yes, for inelastic industries the demand remains constant, but most industries aren't like that. Of course raising prices across the board will have less of an effect on a particular company than just that company raising prices, but usually there is still some effect.
This needs to be repeated over and over again because many people do not understand it.
Ok, now I'm not entirely sure here, but that might be because it's complete and total nonsense.
A corproation is a legal entity designed to make money.
That's right, the corporation is there to make money, not for the government to delegate taxes. There is a tax on making money, thus the corporation must pay taxes on the money that it makes.
When the government raises taxes on a corporation, the corporation has to make up for the higher costs.
Nonsense. When the government raises taxes on a corporation, the corporation's profit drops.
It does this by increasing the price of its products or services.
If the corporation wants its profits to remain unchanged by the increased taxes (which may not even be possible) it has to either increase revenue or decrease expenses.
One way of doing this is to raise the price of its products or services, but there's these tricky little supply and demand curves that can mess that up. You see, if you charge more for something, typically fewer people will buy it.
Since making money is the corporations business, they should be looking for the optimal price/demand level anyway. The only possible way that increasing prices could offset increased taxes without fail would be if corporate taxes had some effect on the demand of their product, which they don't.
and one can easily verify if one can pour a gallon of glass, or drain a pint of obsidian.
Or a funnel of pitch?
But seriously, if you see the funnel itself dripping in a hundred years or so, THEN you can say glass is a "supercooled liquid".
That's a bit like having to know every street in a city to be able to go back and forth from home to work.
Hmm, well I guess it is...
There's no substitute for being able to find out EXACTLY what is being done.
Yes, but usually there's a lot of time wasted finding that out which could have been better spent if there were proper specifications and if those specs were met. And what happens if you expect code to work EXACTLY the way it does at one point in time, then it changes?
If the two sides are never allowed to see on the other side, there's a good chance it will never be fixed.
Ok, it would be useful to see the conditions that cause the code to fail to meet up with the documentation. Other than that, well obviously there has to be communication between developers, but not necessarily exchange of code.
Bought any bridges lately?
Yes, and I gotta tell ya, the shipping charges are outrageous!
If every programmer needs to understand every piece of code in the entire system, the size of systems that can be developed is severely restricted.
This is why there are defined interfaces between sections of code. You don't need the code behind the interface if the interface is fully documented.
If the code behind the interface doesn't match the documentation, it's not for you to fix. (ideally) Bugs fixed on the wrong end of the interface just causes more headaches when it eventually is fixed.
So if you can trust the other guy to fix discrepancies between code and documentation, you have no reason to need the source code. Closed source works fine if the developer will maintain responsibility for errors.
Just to be clear, all processors out there have bugs.
Now, it's not necessarily true that all processors have bugs. It's much the same as how you can have a "Hello World!" with no bugs a lot easier than you can have, say, an OS with no bugs. You could probably build an OISC processor with no bugs.
If the APIs are the same, is there any way I can trick a program written to use IE into using Gecko instead, without source? Something like replacing the CLSID number in the exe? This would be so wonderful...
Because we planted it there!
HWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
As I understand it, the bug allows local files to be read into JavaScript variables, which can then be sent to the server.
Also, it has been fixed so future builds will not have this problem. (#141061: added to bugzilla on the 29th, fixed on the 30th, marked as fixed on the 1st)
Well, my geek-ness is safe. My first though upon seeing "H" was "Hologram"... not that that makes any sense, but hey.
NEC monitors seem to last a long time. I'm still using a 15" NEC MultiSync 3FGe that came with a 486 when we bought it new. Convergence at the upper-right and lower-left corners is slightly off, but otherwise it's as good as new.
It'd be nice if it had digital controls and higher resolution and refresh rates, but it still works great.
If their LCD monitors are as good, it's probably worth the extra cost. (or at least some of the extra cost, it's also a top of the line model.)
Replying to stupid comments on slashdot.
A number of people have had this idea and are pursuing it. It's not easy. You need to convince both the textbook authors and the colleges that this would be beneficial. (to them, not the students)
Has anyone ever told you you're a particularly poor reverend?
I didn't read your entire comment because you are obviously pushing what you're used to. There are two problems I can immediately point out with the "menus at the top of the screen" concept.
First, if you are not filling the rest of the screen with the current application, you are separating the work from the tools. If you have a window at the bottom of the screen, it makes sense to have the tools most appropriate to that window right down there with it. To use menus at the top of the screen, you must move your eyes completely away from what you are doing and look somewhere else. (context menus would be ideal, except that they are invisible)
Second, what is most efficient is not always the best. Apple originally recommended against including keyboard shortcuts because they are less efficient that using the menus. Users still wanted them. Efficiency is great, but user comfort is more important.
BTW, from a Fitt's law perspective menus at the top of the screen have infinite height where the mouse is concerned, but not the eyeballs. The "eyeball height" of a menu is the same regardless of where it is placed on the screen. A menu closer to where you are working will therefore be much easier for the eye to target.
But don't you see the beauty of the other side of the coin here?! Sure, you may have to pay royalties for the term of the patent, but when it expires, THIS SWINGING METHOD WILL BE IN PUBLIC RECORD!! So future generation will forever have the knowledge of SWINGING SIDEWAYS! Think of the implications! Think of the joy, the good of humanity!
You can't link a GPL program against a non-GPL library. They become one program as far as the GPL is concerned, and the whole must be GPL. afaik, the LGPL would allow this though.
You might be able to have two programs running in seperate threads and address spaces, one a BSD implementation of this and the other a GPL program which talks to the BSD one. The problem is that any way you can get around this, anyone else can use the same method to "cheat" the GPL so it might not be desirable.
The exact same thing that prevents you from licensing it under the GPL in the first place. The BSD program carries with it the additional restrictions imposed by Microsofts docs. It's BSD with patent (?) restrictions.
As far as the GPL is concerned, anything linked to a GPLed program is a part of that program. So no, you couldn't do that. But if the program was LGPL, then it could be linked with the hypothetical BSD library. (I think... I haven't actually read the LGPL. uh, and IANAL, but that goes without saying.)
would be persistance, energy usage, and cost per unit.
*cough* ok, forget I mentioned persistance... :D
even surpass in speed, Hard Disk Drives
RAM today already surpasses hard drives in speed, that's why it's used as primary memory. According to the blurb: It also is considerably faster than current memory systems. So I think it's quite likely that it would be faster than hdd, the issue would be persistance, energy usage, and cost per unit.
I've been waiting for years for computers to become eletronic-only devices.
"electronic-only"? You mean "no dependence on magnetic feilds"? (no... the power supply'd still need those) Maybe "no moving parts", but on what scale? Liquid crystals rely on moving parts about the same as CRTs (vacuum tubes!) do. (unless you take offence to moving electrons?)
The dimensions of superstring theory are not the same as the dimensions of forked timelines. They're dimensions in the same sense as length, depth, and height (except, as I understand, rolled up into small "loops"). If there are forked timelines, each fork contains all of any superstring dimensions. Otherwise they have no relevance to eachother.
http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngapbr.html#msie-wi n-unix
Or perhaps you are using a Mac? Mac IE does alpha transparency fine, and it is rumoured to be in general a much superior product to the Windows version.
PNG's alpha channel was never utilized because Microsoft never fully supported it. Variable transparency could be very useful except that it wouldn't work in the most commonly used browser.
Of course not, Microsoft likes the BSD license. First they get their TCPIP stack from it, next they'll get a fixed CIFS implementation from it. ;)
I find it interesting that they won't let you use licenses which put specific restrictions on derivative works, but not ones which forbid distributing them altogether. Would a license worded "you may not distribute derivative works *unless* you blah blah" where blah blah is the stuff Microsoft doesn't like work? I mean strictly speaking it doesn't require those things, you have the option to not distribute your derivative at all. (which you, of course, have with the GPL, but since it's specifically named forget it.)