The cost of writing the software has to be recovered. If I spend 6 months writing a piece of software, but can only sell it once, and can only ask $1 for it just because that's how much the CD-R cost, I won't be able to make a living.
There we have it, the final GPL-zealot dogma: you must do all your programming work for the good of the cause, without compensation. You will have to get a 9-5 to pay the bills. The similarity with the way the "church" of scientology works is truly astounding...
You make money based on how much easier your software makes life for someone
I would say you make money based on how big or user-unfriendly your software is. Easy-to-use software that is a relatively small download will sell less, since the convenience-factors of having it on CD or getting a manual matter less.
You have to give people a reason to pay. "I use the software daily and it makes my life easier" is not a reason to pay for it for the majority of people. See also http://hackvan.com/pub/stig/articles/why-do-people-regi ster-shareware.html
I could go on, but I think it is obvious that not maintaining that source code is intellectual property, but service, still allows for a
whole lot of money to be made by the programmers.
And I suppose that is why Redhat et al are raking in money instead of losing money? Oh wait, they're not...
RMS said: "Also, could you tell me what a "console" is?"
That in itself demonstrates to me that RMS is completely out of touch with reality, has no idea what is actually going on in the world. He has become an anachronism.
There are many programmers making lots of money writing free software
How many? How many programmers are there worldwide? Do you think that all of them could find jobs working on products that will be effectively given away for free?
Yes, I know you can charge for "free software". I also know that you cannot prevent the buyer from making as many copies as he wants, which severely limits your ability to sell lots of copies (unless the product is so large that it is more convenient to buy a CD from a vendor, such as is the case with a complete linux distribution)
The only way to make money on "free" software is to work for a company that deals in said software, like RedHat for example. Unlike what others want you to believe, there aren't "many" open source programmers making a living. It may be a number that is somewhat impressive at first glance, but if you put it into perspective, you will see that only a fraction of a percent of all the programmers out there are making money from programming "free software".
So if you want to do that, make sure you get hired by a "free software" company. Also realize that all of those companies are burning money at an alarming rate, don't own the product they are selling, and aren't preventing anyone from simply taking that product and selling it under another name. That does not make for a good business model. Few, if any, of them will be left in a few years.
While no doubt people think it's "cool" to do this kind of thing, it is exactly the kind of thing that gives the "hacker community" a bad name, by going directly against a judge's ruling.
Apparently this is no longer about making a statement (was it ever?), but merely about doing exactly what you want to do, no matter what others or the law think of it. Usually such behaviour is called "childish".
You're right, but you won't get any points for your comment. Your posting contradicts the American/Slashdot/GPL doctrine, and is therefore deemed unacceptable.
Most of these frequencies would be filtered out prior to any kind of processing (digital or analog).
They are filtered out because the signal is going to be processed with limited equipment. If the equipment were better, the signal would not need to be filtered (as much).
Nyquists theorem is fine if you're dealing with low frequencies or frequencies that are a divisor of the sampling rate, but if you have high frequencies that are not a divisor of the sampling rate (i.e. 44100 for CD), you are going to introduce aliasing distortion. Granted, most of the artefacts are beyond the range of normal hearing, but not all of them. This is where highger sampling rates become useful.
Actually, Tesla apparently did some experiments with extremely loud ultrasound, and found that humans can in fact hear way beyond 20kHz, as long as the signal is strong enough.
Sounds of up to half the sampling rate can be reproduced *exactly* by (ideal) audio equipment.
This is what the Nyquist theorem says. The thing you are saying about square waves is a misunderstanding on your part.
I think the misunderstanding is on your part. A square wave of 22050 can NOT be reproduced by even the most ideal audio equipment. This is what the original poster (and indeed most other people when talking about practical applications such as CD audio) was talking about. Close to the Nyquist limit you're basically limited to reproducing sinewaves, however there is no quarantee that the original waveform was a sinewave. This is why higher sampling rates (and I mean substantially higher, not lame-ass 96kHz) is important for accurate reproduction of the original signal.
Actually, the hypocrite would then be the government, which allows these workers into the country to boost the American economy, but wants to kick them out before they get old and start costing money.
Hire or don't hire, pay or don't pay, but don't say there's a shortage because you won't pay what people are demanding. A
shortage is when you can't get something at any price. This is just a tight market where people demand more.
You get hired or not, but don't claim there is no shortage of good IT workers just because nobody is willing to pay you a 6-figure salary.
Given that you don't know what "market rate" means, I cannnot blame them.
If you think you're worth 100k and the companies think you're not, you're not going to get employed. The market rate is not 100k because you say it is. If you want to prevent companies from going elsewhere to find employees with more reasonable demands, so that those companies have to hire you, then you're forcing the market rate to be 100k (assuming all the other wannabee programmers do the same), at the expense of the "free market" mechanism that Americans value so much. It seems to me that the only "free market" the American public values is the one that works to its advantage. The minute the free market costs the public money, the otherwise so despised government has to step in and take control.
Same thing in the US. We've had plenty of applicants claiming to know all kinds of things, but 2 minutes into the interview it became painfully obvious that they didn't know squat. The particularly stupid ones didn't even know what our company does!
In such cases it is quite a relief to be able to get a knowledgable and motivated worker from Europe (most of our H1-B workers come from Europe), who actually knows the ubject at hand, and actually knows what company he's dealing with.
Why should there be a limit on what people are paid? Isn't America suppossed to be the land of the free-markets where
goods and services are sold at whatever price the market will bear?
methinks that your above statement somewhat contradicts this one:
H1B is just another form of corporate welfare, America was built on the backs of immigrants with a strong work ethic. Parts
of it were built on slave-labor even, but in this modern time should we really accept slave-labor in the IT field?
Big business is all for free-markets for their products, but when it comes to paying for required resources they are a bunch of
hypocrites
After reading that twice, I think the hypocrite is you. You have no problem with people trying to get $100k for a no-brainer job, but when the company refuses and gets a skilled worker from Europe for $70k, you call them hypocrites.
I can imagine plenty of systems that would benefit - start with the air
traffic control system
The day that happens is the day I'll stop flying. "Air traffic control systems upgraded to RedHat 7.0" - three weeks later: "planes drop from sky".
Open source is nice. It is NOT the solution to everything.
Plasma screens are particularly bad in this regard. The "beam" (the part that is currently refreshed, it's not actually a beam of course) is *very* bright. You can see this clearly if you look at a plasma screen and then blink rapidly.
How the hell is that post "informative"?? Exactly what information did it offer? Looked like a bunch of questions to me. Silly ones at that, if you know how LCDs works.
Don't count on it. Most of the power in a notebook is consumed by the backlight and RAM. The CPU accounts for a relatively small percentage. They couldn't even get that kind of battery life if the CPU used *no* power.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many of the people that agree with you use nVidia graphics card.
The cost of writing the software has to be recovered. If I spend 6 months writing a piece of software, but can only sell it once, and can only ask $1 for it just because that's how much the CD-R cost, I won't be able to make a living.
There we have it, the final GPL-zealot dogma: you must do all your programming work for the good of the cause, without compensation. You will have to get a 9-5 to pay the bills.
The similarity with the way the "church" of scientology works is truly astounding...
I would say you make money based on how big or user-unfriendly your software is. Easy-to-use software that is a relatively small download will sell less, since the convenience-factors of having it on CD or getting a manual matter less. //hackvan.com/pub/stig/articles/why-do-people-regi ster-shareware.html
You have to give people a reason to pay. "I use the software daily and it makes my life easier" is not a reason to pay for it for the majority of people. See also http:
I could go on, but I think it is obvious that not maintaining that source code is intellectual property, but service, still allows for a whole lot of money to be made by the programmers.
And I suppose that is why Redhat et al are raking in money instead of losing money? Oh wait, they're not...
That in itself demonstrates to me that RMS is completely out of touch with reality, has no idea what is actually going on in the world. He has become an anachronism.
To quote Janet Jackon: "what has he done for you lately?".
How many? How many programmers are there worldwide? Do you think that all of them could find jobs working on products that will be effectively given away for free?
Yes, I know you can charge for "free software". I also know that you cannot prevent the buyer from making as many copies as he wants, which severely limits your ability to sell lots of copies (unless the product is so large that it is more convenient to buy a CD from a vendor, such as is the case with a complete linux distribution)
The only way to make money on "free" software is to work for a company that deals in said software, like RedHat for example. Unlike what others want you to believe, there aren't "many" open source programmers making a living. It may be a number that is somewhat impressive at first glance, but if you put it into perspective, you will see that only a fraction of a percent of all the programmers out there are making money from programming "free software". So if you want to do that, make sure you get hired by a "free software" company. Also realize that all of those companies are burning money at an alarming rate, don't own the product they are selling, and aren't preventing anyone from simply taking that product and selling it under another name. That does not make for a good business model. Few, if any, of them will be left in a few years.
While no doubt people think it's "cool" to do this kind of thing, it is exactly the kind of thing that gives the "hacker community" a bad name, by going directly against a judge's ruling.
Apparently this is no longer about making a statement (was it ever?), but merely about doing exactly what you want to do, no matter what others or the law think of it. Usually such behaviour is called "childish".
You're right, but you won't get any points for your comment. Your posting contradicts the American/Slashdot/GPL doctrine, and is therefore deemed unacceptable.
They are filtered out because the signal is going to be processed with limited equipment. If the equipment were better, the signal would not need to be filtered (as much).
Nyquists theorem is fine if you're dealing with low frequencies or frequencies that are a divisor of the sampling rate, but if you have high frequencies that are not a divisor of the sampling rate (i.e. 44100 for CD), you are going to introduce aliasing distortion. Granted, most of the artefacts are beyond the range of normal hearing, but not all of them. This is where highger sampling rates become useful.
Actually, Tesla apparently did some experiments with extremely loud ultrasound, and found that humans can in fact hear way beyond 20kHz, as long as the signal is strong enough.
Now apply your argument to a 22kHz pure square wave input signal, and you will see why despite Nyquist highger sampling rates are important.
I think the misunderstanding is on your part. A square wave of 22050 can NOT be reproduced by even the most ideal audio equipment. This is what the original poster (and indeed most other people when talking about practical applications such as CD audio) was talking about. Close to the Nyquist limit you're basically limited to reproducing sinewaves, however there is no quarantee that the original waveform was a sinewave. This is why higher sampling rates (and I mean substantially higher, not lame-ass 96kHz) is important for accurate reproduction of the original signal.
Actually, the hypocrite would then be the government, which allows these workers into the country to boost the American economy, but wants to kick them out before they get old and start costing money.
You get hired or not, but don't claim there is no shortage of good IT workers just because nobody is willing to pay you a 6-figure salary.
Given that you don't know what "market rate" means, I cannnot blame them.
If you think you're worth 100k and the companies think you're not, you're not going to get employed. The market rate is not 100k because you say it is. If you want to prevent companies from going elsewhere to find employees with more reasonable demands, so that those companies have to hire you, then you're forcing the market rate to be 100k (assuming all the other wannabee programmers do the same), at the expense of the "free market" mechanism that Americans value so much. It seems to me that the only "free market" the American public values is the one that works to its advantage. The minute the free market costs the public money, the otherwise so despised government has to step in and take control.
Same thing in the US. We've had plenty of applicants claiming to know all kinds of things, but 2 minutes into the interview it became painfully obvious that they didn't know squat. The particularly stupid ones didn't even know what our company does!
In such cases it is quite a relief to be able to get a knowledgable and motivated worker from Europe (most of our H1-B workers come from Europe), who actually knows the ubject at hand, and actually knows what company he's dealing with.
methinks that your above statement somewhat contradicts this one:
H1B is just another form of corporate welfare, America was built on the backs of immigrants with a strong work ethic. Parts of it were built on slave-labor even, but in this modern time should we really accept slave-labor in the IT field? Big business is all for free-markets for their products, but when it comes to paying for required resources they are a bunch of hypocrites
After reading that twice, I think the hypocrite is you. You have no problem with people trying to get $100k for a no-brainer job, but when the company refuses and gets a skilled worker from Europe for $70k, you call them hypocrites.
The day that happens is the day I'll stop flying.
"Air traffic control systems upgraded to RedHat 7.0" - three weeks later: "planes drop from sky".
Open source is nice. It is NOT the solution to everything.
Plasma screens are particularly bad in this regard. The "beam" (the part that is currently refreshed, it's not actually a beam of course) is *very* bright. You can see this clearly if you look at a plasma screen and then blink rapidly.
How the hell is that post "informative"?? Exactly what information did it offer? Looked like a bunch of questions to me. Silly ones at that, if you know how LCDs works.
The poster does NOT need the SyncMaster 1100p+, because that is a CRT and the poster was looking for an LCD.
A well-designed notebook doesn't have a fan, it uses the case as a giant heatsink.
Don't count on it. Most of the power in a notebook is consumed by the backlight and RAM. The CPU accounts for a relatively small percentage. They couldn't even get that kind of battery life if the CPU used *no* power.