So serious persion could consiter Slashdot to be even vagly journalistic. They have proven time and time agian that, in that field, there compleatly incompitent.
I would argue with this. Slashdot, and it's posters do not all have backgrounds of professional journalism. Sure they have a notable anti-MS bias, but that's appropriate considering they are, to a large extent, a Linux news source. But, I have yet to see ANY significant bias against any competitor of Andover/VA. And this is something people are accusing them of every week.
Slashdot has earned a well deserved reputation as a forum for distributing news & information that appeals to it's market segment. It generally does so quite well, with (in my opinion) surprisingly little bias and a surprisingly high degree of competence considering the editors backgrounds.
Of course, if you have an EXAMPLE of the incompetence of which you speak, feel free to post it. Just stop screaming incompetence without backing it up. (And I'm not willing to accept the fact that occasionally the same story get's reported more then once. That's not incompetence, it's busyness. Let's see you remember EVERY SINGLE article that slashdot has posted over the last six months).
A minor clarification: that should read "Internet.com does have a *right* to use their media as they see fit, but, assuming they want to be considered a news site, they also have a *responsibility* to use it fairly. "
Well, you're right to a point. Internet.com does have a *right* to use their media as they see fit, but they also have a *responsibility* to use it fairly.
Take a counter example. Say slashdot posted, then pulled, a positive post regarding Penguin Computing. Would that be ethical? It's a tough call, but if Slashdot wants to be considered a journalistic site rather then an advertising site, it's a bad idea, ethical or not.
What it boils down to is simple. Internet.com can do as they please, but if they discriminate against the competition, it's hurts their reputation. Perhaps speaking out about it will give them cause to rethink the policy
The tribute exacted by the drug company is even more staggering, resulting in a net loss to society versus some more efficient mechanism.
I wholeheartedly agree that the profits that the drug companies make are obscene. Hence the reason I recommend effectively cutting their patent period in half (Currently, they have twenty years from patent application, but roughly ten years of that is lost in testing. I recommend 5 years after approval).
Drug research should be funded by those with a strong interest in keeping people healthy. Notably health insurance companies.
Actually, Drug companies & insurance companies have somewhat opposed interests, so I wouldn't want insurance companies in charge of drug research. Insurance companies make their profits by keeping health care costs low, in many cases, sacrificing appropriate treatment to do so. Drug companies, on the other hand, make their money by inventing new technologies with little regard to cost. A perfect example is the cancer drug Taxol. Initially, Taxol was extremely expensive due to its being created from the bark of a rather rare tree. Insurance companies would have looked at the expense & halted the research. Drug companies, since they are motivated by profit, gambled that they could reduce the costs by synthesizing the rare ingredients, something which they have succeeded in doing. By keeping the profit motive, you assure continued advancement, something that putting drug research in the hands of insurance companies wouldn't do.
And, contrary to what you suggest (and popular opinion) insurance companies don't really care about keeping people healthy. In fact if people become TO healthy insurance profits would probably drop since people would lower insurance on their list of priorities. In reality, an insurance companies main objective is to shift as much health care money as possible into their own pockets. For example, if insurance companies are so into keeping people healthy, why don't they actively support research into natural & alternative medecines, chiropractic, & other preventative courses? In many cases, there is substantial evidence that these programs work, & in many cases they actually work better then their "traditional" counterparts. It's rather telling that according to the WHO, the US health care ranks only 37th in the world (just below Costa Rica, just above Slovenia), even though our spending is the highest (See the Seattle Times story).
I should note that I wouldn't be opposed to an alternate system for drug research, but the suggestions you've made so far just don't seem to answer ALL the necessary questions.
At least look logically just because a number of people come here dosn't mean that everyone and thier mother does as well.
No, everyone & their mother doesn't come here. More importantly, the press does. Exposure on Slashdot has already caused many companies to back off from planned (or already implemented) actions. In addition to the current Mattell example, The Pinkertons backed off considerably from their plans for "The Wave" after unfavorable presson slashdot escalated. Intel & the PIII ID is another example.
Supposedly, there was a time when many great innovations would never have happened if it were not for the patent system. That time, if indeed it ever existed, is long gone. Patents are now a net burden on society.
While I agree with you in spirit, I don't think I quite agree with you that the patent process as a whole should be done away with. Instead, it needs to be completely revamped... I'd suggest an overall shortening of patent terms-- say three years for legitimate software patents, probably five years on most other patents & five years from the date of FDA approval in the case of drug patents.
Does anyone honestly believe that drug research would grind to a halt if there were no patents? If so, then why does open source software development not grind to a halt?
Yes, drug research would grind (more-or-less) to a halt. The cost of developing a new medicine is staggering. Add to that the costs to adequately test its safety & a company needs to have a window in which they can reasonably expect to profit from an invention. Giving the companies a tempporary monopoly gives them incentive to continue to develop.
Comparing drug research to open-source software is somewhat akin to comparing apples to 747's. The industries are so completely different that it's hard to respond. But basically, Open-source works because the cost of entry is low. Anyone with a modicum of computing experience can develop a functional tool (be it a new utility or new OS), which can then be developed by others of similar skill level. There's no need for an advanced-- or even high school-- degree, nor are any special tools or resources required-- just a home computer. Developing drugs,on the other hand realistically requires several people with AT LEAST 4 years of advanced schooling (& more likely 8+ years), as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in laborotory equipment, etc. Then, once you get all that, you start the several year process to get to the point that you have a product worthy of testing in animals. Several years later (IF you're EXTREMELY lucky), you have a product that you can start testing in humans. Then, maybe another 5 years later, again with extreme luck, you have a product that you can begin marketing. I seem to recall that the average investment before a drug ever reaches market is around 10 million. And under our current system, about half of the twenty-year patent is gone before the product ever reaches market.
Note, however, I'm NOT an apologist for the drug industry. I STRONGLY support reform, but at the same time I'm willing to recognize the realities of the business. Granting five years after FDA approval still gives a reasonable window of opportunity without unreasonably hindering related advancements.
It's BUSINESS people. It's not personal, it's business. We should all know by now that business ethics and personal ethics are two completely different things.
True, but just because it's true, does that mean it's acceptable? This dichotomy is really rather depressing, & the fact that you seem to accept it so readily even more so. To my mind, companies have no less social responsibility then the individual.
Contrary to VERY popular belief, RIMMs are NOT bad technology. It's just expensive technology. And with any technology, it had a downside (mainly the latency). But it's NOT bad. If it were bad, no one would use it at all. No amount of money can make people adopt a BAD technology. Maybe one that isn't as good as it could be, but not a truly BAD technology.
Nonsense. Money may not be able to KEEP users, but money can certainly get people to adopt. And what you're failing to recognize is that Intel really doesn't care whether they have satisfied customers or not. Even with the gains of AMD, they still hold a commanding lead & know that a lucrative deal such as they have with Rambus more then accounts for any potential losses in customer satisfaction.
No one believes that RAMBUS is bad. They just don't like the business practices, don't like what it "Might" do to the industry, and don't like the technology. Thus, RAMBUS is a Bad Thing(tm). Cry me a river. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Actually, from what I've heard, Rambus is overpriced, and not particularly fast for most applications. Does that make it bad? Well, for me, yes. I don't have the budget to shell out $472 for 128MB. Nor do I have an application that demands it. But with Rambus using these techniques, I may not have a choice-- I'll either buy a RIMM, or buy SDRAM for the same price due to licensing fees.
Another technology will emerge. It always does. If RAMBUS is truly as bad as everyone claims, Digital Darwinism will take over and make sure it doesn't go any further. Sure, comapnies have monetary reasons for making sure RAMBUS succeeds. So what? They'll succeed, these companies will make their money, then leave RAMBUS out to dry. Watch.
Of course, but events that occur today will set the course of memory technology for the next three to five years or more. As far as I know, there are no new technologies on the immediate horizon, so if the current situation goes unchecked, expect memory prices to go up in the forseeable future.
All I'm trying to say is that everyone just needs to settle down. There's a buck to be made by all of us here (a LOT of people cashed in on the Intel MTH debacle getting themselves free RIMMs) and no one seemed to care about ethics in that situation.
How is unethical to demand that Intel fix a defective product? If Intel had not shipped before it was ready, they would not have been in the situation where they needed to replace the memory. If you purchased an affected motherboard, it's not even slightly unethical to demand a replacement, even if you're not directly affected by the bug. You pay a premium for the Intel brand name. You have a right to expect quality to go with that premium. If it doesn't, Intel has a (moral AND legal) responsibility to fix it.
The reason Apple makes very little from OS sales is that they have chosen Hardware as their prime revenue source. If they were to follow the recommendations of this article, they would shift their business model from a hardware company to a software company, so your critique falls apart.
That said, I think there are other holes in the projections... Simple things like his optimism about hardware show his ignorance. Most hardware problems (such as IRQ conflicts) don't exist on the Mac because of superior hardware design, it has little to do with software. Simply installing MacOC X on PC hardware won't magically make the problems go away. And the lack of driver support will cripple MacOS on Intel for several years, just as it's currently a limiting factor for Linux.
All that said, I do expect OS X to revolutionize the industry. If it's done right, it will put an unheard of amount of power in the hand of ordinairy users, while hiding the complexity that that power inherently creates. But don't expect it to kill either Windows or Linux. With such companies as Eazel & Helixcode as well as thousands of independent programmers, backing Linux, expect to see some real innovation in usability on the Linux front.
As far as Windows is concerned, the next few years could be really interesting... All through the trial, MS has been throwing around the phrase "Freedom to Innovate", which everyone in the industry knows is a bit of a joke-- when was the last time that Microsoft created a REAL innovation. But, breaking up MS means that they are now forced to compete on their merits rather then their name. It's entirely conceivable that in a few years, Windows could actually turn into a force to be reckoned with (technically, not just marketing-wise).
Better yet-- Use qmail as your mail server. No need to make an alias or username. Need to give your email to ebay? give them username-ebay@server.com. The nice thing about this is there's absolutely no extra effort required for any non-offending site. If a site starts to spam you, though, just dump all email to that address to/dev/null. No muss, No fuss...
The thing that GNU/Linux can learn is a cleaned up and unified configuration system. To my mind the area where GNU/Linux really needs to clean things up is over in/etc (and maybe/dev and/var and a few of the other utilitarian filesystems). Create a unified, consistant and extendable XML setup for system, application and user configuration files.
<Deleted>
Migration is going to be a nightmare (remember glibc?) however once migration is done things can really start to move forward in terms of usability.
This seems like a brilliant idea. But why should migration be so tough? Simply define an API, create a subdirectory of/etc (/etc/config for example, you could also add ~/.config for any user config files) & encourage developers to work from that API. So, for example if the developers of Pine wanted to convert, they'd just move their config files to/etc/config/pine & change the format to the new standard. Doing it this way certainly slows adoption, but if the advantages are as compelling as they seem, there's little reason not to switch other then some re-coding of the programs config mechanism (which would need to be done anyway). Of course the other big advantage of doing it this way is that you don't need any official sanction to do it. You don't even need the config tool. Simply define an open standard which anyone who wants to can write a config tool to & people can start to switch. In the short term, we've lost no ground from where we are now since users & administrators can still edit the xml files by hand (in fact we've probably gained some since standardized config files are easier to un derstand then non-standard ones).
Well, IBM helped with the support, so they presumably provided access to the system. So, it presumably cost no more to do this port then it would to any other platform (& maybe less depending on just how much help IBM provided). But I suspect that there are two factors that make the port reasonable for SuSE. As the last person pointed out, the first is support. The other is convenience. If you run SuSE on the mainframe, you're more likely to run it on your desktop systems, & your employees will probably run it on their PCs at home.
And yes, there are other alternative sources out there--but it should fall upon the people who create the software, not a third party.
So, what you're saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that PHP-- a free software package-- should include the same quality of documentation as CF, a $500-$5000 program? Nonsense.
I'm NOT a programmer. Yet I learned a functiional amount of PHP in a few days from two books that I would have purchased anyway (Webmaster in a Nutshell and MySQL). Can't afford those? Pick up O'Reilly's Pocket Guide to PHP for about $10 & (along with the online docs) you'll be up to speed in no time.
Granted, the third party books on PHP have generally gotten less then stellar reviews. But when a language is this simple, what's it really matter?
Actually, giving credit is really the best solution. Without being given credit, what motivation does the company have in releasing the changes? Certainly no legal one, since they're not distributing the software. Seemingly there's a moral onligation (they benefit from the previously GPL'd code, so they should return the modifications), but how many corporations do you know that will do something on purely moral grounds?
By giving them credit in the copyright statement, they get essentially free publicity & goodwill from the free software community. And, no, you don't need to comment every line of code. A simple "Portions gracefully contributed by the XYZ corporation" should suffice. If they insist on retaining copyright on their mods, then a patch or library would provide the necessary seperation.
This is really a wonderful example of how well the GPL works, even though it's fairly restrictive, it solves these issues simply and efficiently.
Except, if I'm not mistaken your interpretation is inaccurate. Since the GPL'd code is used purely for an internal project, the company would be under absolutely no obligation to release any changes in any form, GPL'd or not. Only if they were to distribute the software would this be a good example of the GPL in action.
Nonsense. MS went after/. because they assumed that they would immediately cave in & remove the offending articles. MS never made a "public stand". On the other hand,/. & Andover did make a public stand. They know that MS has far more to lose in this case then they have to gain. Once MS realizes this simple fact, expect this suit to rapidly go away.
Microsoft's amazing and eerie silence is suspicious. In the DVD case, the MPAA has placed web page upon web page, documenting their argument and why they should win. In the DOJ case, Microsoft did the same. In the Slashdot case?...Nothing.
This isn't natural for a major corporation. Corporations thrive on publicity, Microsoft more than most. Trampling their enemies into the ground should be good for a few column inches, or at least a headline on MSNBC. At the very least, some kind of official dissociation with the DDOS, lest suspicions be raised.
Sorry, but your paranoia is showing... First, corporations thrive on GOOD publicity. There's an old adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but in MS's case and at the present time, it just ain't true. So far, MS has done amazingly well in the court of public opinion. They've managed to keep the majority of the public unaware of their dirty tricks & by playing themselves up as the victim, they've come up on top. Now, this story comes out & they're the obvious bad guy. They're scared.
Second, this is all fresh. Did the MPAA have their website up the day the first legal papers were sent? Of course not. They publicly responded, but only after allowing enough time to figure out what they're official, public stance would be. MS sent the threat because they assumed that/. would be good little kids & remove the naughty posts. They assumed that they would immediately comply & that nothing further would be heard of it. Of course/. aren't little kids who can just be randomly threatened & immediately back down. In fact/. is a cocky brat with a big bankroll & he's just looking for a fight. (I mean that in a GOOD way!) MS probably will respond, but they need to confer with the lawyers, & since this happened late in the week, I realistically wouldn't have expected anything by now anyway.
As far as the DDoS, MS probably never will comment. Why should their PR flacks waste their time on such absurd notions. (Even if they did perpetate it, which I personally doubt, as far as they're concerned it remains an absurd notion until there's evidence to the contrary.)
Even thought Slashdot/Andover is obviously on the side of right here, you may well lose a long and protracted legal battle. Andover IPO money is great, but Microsoft has misplaced more cash than that. Lawyers cost money and good lawyers cost a LOT of money.
There's one big flaw in this argument... I don't think MS can afford to fight this particular battle. Here's the deal: Their best argument is shaky on two counts (they've copywritten what is basically a public document, and Slashdot is a common carrier). The other arguments, while sound under current law, would probably never stand up to a constitutional challenge. Considering how valuable DMCA coverage is to MS, I doubt they would ever do to much to risk a real challenge to it. So, you can see that it's not necessarily in their best long term interest to fight it to begin with.
Next, consider what MS has to gain if they win. Copyright law basically allows for two forms of recovery, actual & statutory. In order to recover actual damages, there has to be some monetary loss to MS. Since they freely give away the document, that's obviously not the case. Statutory damages are a bit more troubling. Concievably, MS could be awarded up to $100,000 per offense. In reality, though, I doubt that any court would award any where near that much due to the nature of this case. So, basically, MS has little to expect in terms of monetary rewards for prosecuting the case. (note: it's possible that the DMCA has changed this a bit, but nonetheless, the fundamental point should be valid). Of course winning would also mean the removal of the articles, but that's a moot point now that they've been read my everyone in the world.
Finally, consider what they have to lose whether they win or lose the case. MS can't afford to lose any more ground in the court of public opinion then they already have, and this is the sort of case that probably even has Libertarians questioning MS's tactics.
In the end, Microsoft has an awful lot to lose for what could be a surprisingly modest gain. MS will most likely try to buy Andover's silence, saying they'll settle in exchange for a NDA, but in the end, they'll have to drop the case either way. Even with all their money, they can't afford to do it any other way.
(Actually, there is one potential big gain for MS if they were to win. If they win AND the DMCA withstands a constitutional challenge, that would give them a lot more power. Nonetheless, they have so much to lose, and considering the law is already being challenged by the DeCSS folks, I'd be quite surprised if they pursued it).
You don't. Try to imagine you are blind and need a speech interface, or that you have bad eye sight and need 48pt fonts to read something, and then be faced with a site that uses needless graphics for navigation, when written words would have done as well, if not better.
Buttons are perfectly acceptable in an accessible site so long as proper design considerations are taken into account. Long before accessibility on the internet was a prime concern, compatibility with text based browsers was a significant concern. Although text based browsers no longer have the market share they once did, the same basic design principles that were relevant to them are now relevent (more or less) to accessibility.
For the vast majority of sites, providing text based links at the bottom of the page should be sufficient. This provides for a nice balance of accessibility and aesthetics. For a site where accessibility is a prime concern (a site on blindness for example), then obviously forgoing buttons altogether may be a better solution.
Two notes though: 1) This whole argument is based on a presumption of good site design. Granted, the vast majority of sites are not particularly well designed, considering form to the exclusion of function, so this comment may not apply in all cases. 2) This is another advantage of using PHP or a similar solution. By seperating the form from the content it's almost trivial to provide graphically rich & graphically light sites for users with different needs. (Nonetheless, note one still applies! Check out Nielsen's book "Designing Wen Usability" for good info.)
i dont trust joker.com. they dont seem to be competant.
Is this a troll, or do you really have a reason to not trust them? My personal experience has been wholly satisfactory, though admittedly, I've not had a problem that's really tested the relationship. But the fact that you're posting anonymously coupled with the fact that you don't actually say WHY you don't trust them makes your comment completely useless...
With the aforementioned http://joker.com you do everything yourself at $15 per year. If you want them to provide one or more name servers add $6 per year/per NS (Though you can get free DIY nameservers at http://soa.granitecanyon.com). I've got half a dozen servers registered through them without a hitch. I wholeheartedly recommend them.
Call me a tight-assed conservative, but I don't think that the government ought to be subsidising the erotic arousal of others. Unless I'm missing a large part of the situation, these groups are calling for blocking software to be put on government libraries' computers. This is not a call to block private transmissions on the Internet.
(I already made this argument in a reply to a reply of this message, but I think it's a particularly good one, so I'l repeat it...)
This argument makes no sense. You're not willing to subsidize my looking at online porn, but you are willing to subsidize my NOT looking at it? Blocking software isn't free. There'll be the obligatory upgrades, etc. Add to that the costs of the legal challenges (and remember, this is probably unconstitutional to begin with... see this article), and very soon my arousal is cheap in comparison.
A bit off-topic, but still related: If you want to know the real costs (both financial & societal) of enforcing these sorts of "Moral Laws", check out Peter McWilliams book "Ain't nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in our Free Country." The full text is available online at www.mcwilliams.com, but the printed book is well worth the price ($8). In particular check out the chapter "It's very expensive" which talks about the financial costs of enforcing laws against consensual crimes (Gambling, drugs, pornography, etc.)
ALL laws legislate morality. The real issue is whose morality they're legislating
Well, yes, that's true, but it's also horribly simplistic. Yes, saying it's illegal to kill someone is also a moral law, but it's primarily a law that is in place to maintain an orderly society. If murder was legal, I could go out & shoot whoever I wanted... That's obviously disruptive to the normal flow of things.
Moral laws are laws that regulate things that do not effect the day-to-day function of society. If I want to look at hustler or smoke a joint, why should the government forbid me too? How do these things effect you? While I can understand the motivation of preventing children from accessing www.hustler.com, the government has no business in preventing ME from doing so.
Of course the obvious reply to that is that you don't want to subsidize me in viewing these sites. But that falls flat pretty quick-- You're not willing to subsidize my viewing them, but you are willing to subsidize my NOT viewing them? Remember, this software ain't free. Add to that cost of all of the legal challenges, etc, & in the end, it will be much cheaper to just mind your own business...
Good point, but I think the 'effort and cash' is worthwhile and well-spent. As a taxpayer, I will vote in favor of restricted access.
While I agree with your sentiment, the execution of most censorware is inherently flawed. I wouldn't object to using "reactive" censorware (sites are only censored if they've explicitly been determined to be pornographic) in libraries. Unfortunately, all censorware that I've ever heard of is "proactive"-- it censors based on a word list, therefore will inherently censor sites that should not be censored, while still letting by sites that should be. Obviously, the problem with "Reactive" censorware of course is that there's so much out there that it would be virtually impossible to keep up with it all, but the first ammendment doesn't allow for proactive software (See this article by Jonathon Wallace).
The one place where I might find it acceptable to use traditional censorware would be on any computers in the childrens areas, but even then, the librarian would have to be able to override the block on request (except on those sites that they specifically deem obscene). Adults using the computers should not be forced to be censored. Any other solution fails the constitutional challenges stated in the above article.
def. Monopoly - A market that exists with only one vendor and barriers such that no other vendors may enter.
While that may be the dictionary of a monopoly, it's not the LEGAL definition. Legally, a company is a monopoly if they are the dominant player, & use monopolistic practices to maintain they're leadership. Whether you support or oppose the lawsuit, if you've read the trial transcripts, it's hard to argue that microsoft hasn't behaved in a rather shady manner in many of their dealings. Should this behaviour be illegal? Well, I think so, but I know all of you Randites will disagree with me...
Where do you draw the line between protecting the musician's interests and giving the consumers value for what they pay for?
SDMI has nothing to do with musicians. Probably 8 out of ten of them oppose it. SDMI exists solely for the major record companies. MP3 has major record companies scared stiff-- not only because of piracy, but more importantly because it allows bands & independent labels to cheaply & easily distribute their music worldwide without the record companies getting their cut. By implementing these kinds of senseless restrictions, the majors hope to kill off any & all forms of digital music distribution. Obviously, in the long run it's a losing battle, but they've got the money, so they won't give up the fight easily.
Slashdot Mirror
So serious persion could consiter Slashdot to be even vagly journalistic. They have proven time and time agian that, in that field, there compleatly incompitent.
I would argue with this. Slashdot, and it's posters do not all have backgrounds of professional journalism. Sure they have a notable anti-MS bias, but that's appropriate considering they are, to a large extent, a Linux news source. But, I have yet to see ANY significant bias against any competitor of Andover/VA. And this is something people are accusing them of every week.
Slashdot has earned a well deserved reputation as a forum for distributing news & information that appeals to it's market segment. It generally does so quite well, with (in my opinion) surprisingly little bias and a surprisingly high degree of competence considering the editors backgrounds.
Of course, if you have an EXAMPLE of the incompetence of which you speak, feel free to post it. Just stop screaming incompetence without backing it up. (And I'm not willing to accept the fact that occasionally the same story get's reported more then once. That's not incompetence, it's busyness. Let's see you remember EVERY SINGLE article that slashdot has posted over the last six months).
A minor clarification: that should read "Internet.com does have a *right* to use their media as they see fit, but, assuming they want to be considered a news site, they also have a *responsibility* to use it fairly. "
Well, you're right to a point. Internet.com does have a *right* to use their media as they see fit, but they also have a *responsibility* to use it fairly.
Take a counter example. Say slashdot posted, then pulled, a positive post regarding Penguin Computing. Would that be ethical? It's a tough call, but if Slashdot wants to be considered a journalistic site rather then an advertising site, it's a bad idea, ethical or not.
What it boils down to is simple. Internet.com can do as they please, but if they discriminate against the competition, it's hurts their reputation. Perhaps speaking out about it will give them cause to rethink the policy
The tribute exacted by the drug company is even more staggering, resulting in a net loss to society versus some more efficient mechanism.
I wholeheartedly agree that the profits that the drug companies make are obscene. Hence the reason I recommend effectively cutting their patent period in half (Currently, they have twenty years from patent application, but roughly ten years of that is lost in testing. I recommend 5 years after approval).
Drug research should be funded by those with a strong interest in keeping people healthy. Notably health insurance companies.
Actually, Drug companies & insurance companies have somewhat opposed interests, so I wouldn't want insurance companies in charge of drug research. Insurance companies make their profits by keeping health care costs low, in many cases, sacrificing appropriate treatment to do so. Drug companies, on the other hand, make their money by inventing new technologies with little regard to cost. A perfect example is the cancer drug Taxol. Initially, Taxol was extremely expensive due to its being created from the bark of a rather rare tree. Insurance companies would have looked at the expense & halted the research. Drug companies, since they are motivated by profit, gambled that they could reduce the costs by synthesizing the rare ingredients, something which they have succeeded in doing. By keeping the profit motive, you assure continued advancement, something that putting drug research in the hands of insurance companies wouldn't do.
And, contrary to what you suggest (and popular opinion) insurance companies don't really care about keeping people healthy. In fact if people become TO healthy insurance profits would probably drop since people would lower insurance on their list of priorities. In reality, an insurance companies main objective is to shift as much health care money as possible into their own pockets. For example, if insurance companies are so into keeping people healthy, why don't they actively support research into natural & alternative medecines, chiropractic, & other preventative courses? In many cases, there is substantial evidence that these programs work, & in many cases they actually work better then their "traditional" counterparts. It's rather telling that according to the WHO, the US health care ranks only 37th in the world (just below Costa Rica, just above Slovenia), even though our spending is the highest (See the Seattle Times story).
I should note that I wouldn't be opposed to an alternate system for drug research, but the suggestions you've made so far just don't seem to answer ALL the necessary questions.
At least look logically just because a number of people come here dosn't mean that everyone and thier mother does as well.
No, everyone & their mother doesn't come here. More importantly, the press does. Exposure on Slashdot has already caused many companies to back off from planned (or already implemented) actions. In addition to the current Mattell example, The Pinkertons backed off considerably from their plans for "The Wave" after unfavorable presson slashdot escalated. Intel & the PIII ID is another example.
Supposedly, there was a time when many great innovations would never have happened if it were not for the patent system. That time, if indeed it ever existed, is long gone. Patents are now a net burden on society.
While I agree with you in spirit, I don't think I quite agree with you that the patent process as a whole should be done away with. Instead, it needs to be completely revamped... I'd suggest an overall shortening of patent terms-- say three years for legitimate software patents, probably five years on most other patents & five years from the date of FDA approval in the case of drug patents.
Does anyone honestly believe that drug research would grind to a halt if there were no patents? If so, then why does open source software development not grind to a halt?
Yes, drug research would grind (more-or-less) to a halt. The cost of developing a new medicine is staggering. Add to that the costs to adequately test its safety & a company needs to have a window in which they can reasonably expect to profit from an invention. Giving the companies a tempporary monopoly gives them incentive to continue to develop.
Comparing drug research to open-source software is somewhat akin to comparing apples to 747's. The industries are so completely different that it's hard to respond. But basically, Open-source works because the cost of entry is low. Anyone with a modicum of computing experience can develop a functional tool (be it a new utility or new OS), which can then be developed by others of similar skill level. There's no need for an advanced-- or even high school-- degree, nor are any special tools or resources required-- just a home computer. Developing drugs,on the other hand realistically requires several people with AT LEAST 4 years of advanced schooling (& more likely 8+ years), as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in laborotory equipment, etc. Then, once you get all that, you start the several year process to get to the point that you have a product worthy of testing in animals. Several years later (IF you're EXTREMELY lucky), you have a product that you can start testing in humans. Then, maybe another 5 years later, again with extreme luck, you have a product that you can begin marketing. I seem to recall that the average investment before a drug ever reaches market is around 10 million. And under our current system, about half of the twenty-year patent is gone before the product ever reaches market.
Note, however, I'm NOT an apologist for the drug industry. I STRONGLY support reform, but at the same time I'm willing to recognize the realities of the business. Granting five years after FDA approval still gives a reasonable window of opportunity without unreasonably hindering related advancements.
It's BUSINESS people. It's not personal, it's business. We should all know by now that business ethics and personal ethics are two completely different things.
True, but just because it's true, does that mean it's acceptable? This dichotomy is really rather depressing, & the fact that you seem to accept it so readily even more so. To my mind, companies have no less social responsibility then the individual.
Contrary to VERY popular belief, RIMMs are NOT bad technology. It's just expensive technology. And with any technology, it had a downside (mainly the latency). But it's NOT bad. If it were bad, no one would use it at all. No amount of money can make people adopt a BAD technology. Maybe one that isn't as good as it could be, but not a truly BAD technology.
Nonsense. Money may not be able to KEEP users, but money can certainly get people to adopt. And what you're failing to recognize is that Intel really doesn't care whether they have satisfied customers or not. Even with the gains of AMD, they still hold a commanding lead & know that a lucrative deal such as they have with Rambus more then accounts for any potential losses in customer satisfaction.
No one believes that RAMBUS is bad. They just don't like the business practices, don't like what it "Might" do to the industry, and don't like the technology. Thus, RAMBUS is a Bad Thing(tm). Cry me a river. If you don't want it, don't buy it.
Actually, from what I've heard, Rambus is overpriced, and not particularly fast for most applications. Does that make it bad? Well, for me, yes. I don't have the budget to shell out $472 for 128MB. Nor do I have an application that demands it. But with Rambus using these techniques, I may not have a choice-- I'll either buy a RIMM, or buy SDRAM for the same price due to licensing fees.
Another technology will emerge. It always does. If RAMBUS is truly as bad as everyone claims, Digital Darwinism will take over and make sure it doesn't go any further. Sure, comapnies have monetary reasons for making sure RAMBUS succeeds. So what? They'll succeed, these companies will make their money, then leave RAMBUS out to dry. Watch.
Of course, but events that occur today will set the course of memory technology for the next three to five years or more. As far as I know, there are no new technologies on the immediate horizon, so if the current situation goes unchecked, expect memory prices to go up in the forseeable future.
All I'm trying to say is that everyone just needs to settle down. There's a buck to be made by all of us here (a LOT of people cashed in on the Intel MTH debacle getting themselves free
RIMMs) and no one seemed to care about ethics in that situation.
How is unethical to demand that Intel fix a defective product? If Intel had not shipped before it was ready, they would not have been in the situation where they needed to replace the memory. If you purchased an affected motherboard, it's not even slightly unethical to demand a replacement, even if you're not directly affected by the bug. You pay a premium for the Intel brand name. You have a right to expect quality to go with that premium. If it doesn't, Intel has a (moral AND legal) responsibility to fix it.
The reason Apple makes very little from OS sales is that they have chosen Hardware as their prime revenue source. If they were to follow the recommendations of this article, they would shift their business model from a hardware company to a software company, so your critique falls apart.
That said, I think there are other holes in the projections... Simple things like his optimism about hardware show his ignorance. Most hardware problems (such as IRQ conflicts) don't exist on the Mac because of superior hardware design, it has little to do with software. Simply installing MacOC X on PC hardware won't magically make the problems go away. And the lack of driver support will cripple MacOS on Intel for several years, just as it's currently a limiting factor for Linux.
All that said, I do expect OS X to revolutionize the industry. If it's done right, it will put an unheard of amount of power in the hand of ordinairy users, while hiding the complexity that that power inherently creates. But don't expect it to kill either Windows or Linux. With such companies as Eazel & Helixcode as well as thousands of independent programmers, backing Linux, expect to see some real innovation in usability on the Linux front.
As far as Windows is concerned, the next few years could be really interesting... All through the trial, MS has been throwing around the phrase "Freedom to Innovate", which everyone in the industry knows is a bit of a joke-- when was the last time that Microsoft created a REAL innovation. But, breaking up MS means that they are now forced to compete on their merits rather then their name. It's entirely conceivable that in a few years, Windows could actually turn into a force to be reckoned with (technically, not just marketing-wise).
It could happen...
Better yet-- Use qmail as your mail server. No need to make an alias or username. Need to give your email to ebay? give them username-ebay@server.com. The nice thing about this is there's absolutely no extra effort required for any non-offending site. If a site starts to spam you, though, just dump all email to that address to /dev/null. No muss, No fuss...
The thing that GNU/Linux can learn is a cleaned up and unified configuration system. To my mind the area where GNU/Linux really needs to clean things up is over in /etc (and maybe /dev and /var and a few of the other utilitarian filesystems). Create a unified, consistant and extendable XML setup for system, application and user configuration files.
/etc (/etc/config for example, you could also add ~/.config for any user config files) & encourage developers to work from that API. So, for example if the developers of Pine wanted to convert, they'd just move their config files to /etc/config/pine & change the format to the new standard. Doing it this way certainly slows adoption, but if the advantages are as compelling as they seem, there's little reason not to switch other then some re-coding of the programs config mechanism (which would need to be done anyway). Of course the other big advantage of doing it this way is that you don't need any official sanction to do it. You don't even need the config tool. Simply define an open standard which anyone who wants to can write a config tool to & people can start to switch. In the short term, we've lost no ground from where we are now since users & administrators can still edit the xml files by hand (in fact we've probably gained some since standardized config files are easier to un derstand then non-standard ones).
<Deleted>
Migration is going to be a nightmare (remember glibc?) however once migration is done things can really start to move forward in terms of usability.
This seems like a brilliant idea. But why should migration be so tough? Simply define an API, create a subdirectory of
Well, IBM helped with the support, so they presumably provided access to the system. So, it presumably cost no more to do this port then it would to any other platform (& maybe less depending on just how much help IBM provided). But I suspect that there are two factors that make the port reasonable for SuSE. As the last person pointed out, the first is support. The other is convenience. If you run SuSE on the mainframe, you're more likely to run it on your desktop systems, & your employees will probably run it on their PCs at home.
And yes, there are other alternative sources out there--but it should fall upon the people who create the software, not a third party.
So, what you're saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that PHP-- a free software package-- should include the same quality of documentation as CF, a $500-$5000 program? Nonsense.
I'm NOT a programmer. Yet I learned a functiional amount of PHP in a few days from two books that I would have purchased anyway (Webmaster in a Nutshell and MySQL). Can't afford those? Pick up O'Reilly's Pocket Guide to PHP for about $10 & (along with the online docs) you'll be up to speed in no time.
Granted, the third party books on PHP have generally gotten less then stellar reviews. But when a language is this simple, what's it really matter?
Actually, giving credit is really the best solution. Without being given credit, what motivation does the company have in releasing the changes? Certainly no legal one, since they're not distributing the software. Seemingly there's a moral onligation (they benefit from the previously GPL'd code, so they should return the modifications), but how many corporations do you know that will do something on purely moral grounds?
By giving them credit in the copyright statement, they get essentially free publicity & goodwill from the free software community. And, no, you don't need to comment every line of code. A simple "Portions gracefully contributed by the XYZ corporation" should suffice. If they insist on retaining copyright on their mods, then a patch or library would provide the necessary seperation.
This is really a wonderful example of how well the GPL works, even though it's fairly restrictive, it solves these issues simply and efficiently.
Except, if I'm not mistaken your interpretation is inaccurate. Since the GPL'd code is used purely for an internal project, the company would be under absolutely no obligation to release any changes in any form, GPL'd or not. Only if they were to distribute the software would this be a good example of the GPL in action.
Nonsense. MS went after /. because they assumed that they would immediately cave in & remove the offending articles. MS never made a "public stand". On the other hand, /. & Andover did make a public stand. They know that MS has far more to lose in this case then they have to gain. Once MS realizes this simple fact, expect this suit to rapidly go away.
Microsoft's amazing and eerie silence is suspicious. In the DVD case, the MPAA has placed web page upon web page, documenting their argument and why they should win. In the DOJ case, Microsoft did the same. In the Slashdot case? ...Nothing.
/. would be good little kids & remove the naughty posts. They assumed that they would immediately comply & that nothing further would be heard of it. Of course /. aren't little kids who can just be randomly threatened & immediately back down. In fact /. is a cocky brat with a big bankroll & he's just looking for a fight. (I mean that in a GOOD way!) MS probably will respond, but they need to confer with the lawyers, & since this happened late in the week, I realistically wouldn't have expected anything by now anyway.
This isn't natural for a major corporation. Corporations thrive on publicity, Microsoft more than most. Trampling their enemies into the ground should be good for a few column inches, or at least a headline on MSNBC. At the very least, some kind of official dissociation with the DDOS, lest suspicions be raised.
Sorry, but your paranoia is showing... First, corporations thrive on GOOD publicity. There's an old adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but in MS's case and at the present time, it just ain't true. So far, MS has done amazingly well in the court of public opinion. They've managed to keep the majority of the public unaware of their dirty tricks & by playing themselves up as the victim, they've come up on top. Now, this story comes out & they're the obvious bad guy. They're scared.
Second, this is all fresh. Did the MPAA have their website up the day the first legal papers were sent? Of course not. They publicly responded, but only after allowing enough time to figure out what they're official, public stance would be. MS sent the threat because they assumed that
As far as the DDoS, MS probably never will comment. Why should their PR flacks waste their time on such absurd notions. (Even if they did perpetate it, which I personally doubt, as far as they're concerned it remains an absurd notion until there's evidence to the contrary.)
Even thought Slashdot/Andover is obviously on the side of right here, you may well lose a long and protracted legal battle. Andover IPO money is great, but Microsoft has misplaced more cash than that. Lawyers cost money and good lawyers cost a LOT of money.
There's one big flaw in this argument... I don't think MS can afford to fight this particular battle. Here's the deal: Their best argument is shaky on two counts (they've copywritten what is basically a public document, and Slashdot is a common carrier). The other arguments, while sound under current law, would probably never stand up to a constitutional challenge. Considering how valuable DMCA coverage is to MS, I doubt they would ever do to much to risk a real challenge to it. So, you can see that it's not necessarily in their best long term interest to fight it to begin with.
Next, consider what MS has to gain if they win. Copyright law basically allows for two forms of recovery, actual & statutory. In order to recover actual damages, there has to be some monetary loss to MS. Since they freely give away the document, that's obviously not the case. Statutory damages are a bit more troubling. Concievably, MS could be awarded up to $100,000 per offense. In reality, though, I doubt that any court would award any where near that much due to the nature of this case. So, basically, MS has little to expect in terms of monetary rewards for prosecuting the case. (note: it's possible that the DMCA has changed this a bit, but nonetheless, the fundamental point should be valid). Of course winning would also mean the removal of the articles, but that's a moot point now that they've been read my everyone in the world.
Finally, consider what they have to lose whether they win or lose the case. MS can't afford to lose any more ground in the court of public opinion then they already have, and this is the sort of case that probably even has Libertarians questioning MS's tactics.
In the end, Microsoft has an awful lot to lose for what could be a surprisingly modest gain. MS will most likely try to buy Andover's silence, saying they'll settle in exchange for a NDA, but in the end, they'll have to drop the case either way. Even with all their money, they can't afford to do it any other way.
(Actually, there is one potential big gain for MS if they were to win. If they win AND the DMCA withstands a constitutional challenge, that would give them a lot more power. Nonetheless, they have so much to lose, and considering the law is already being challenged by the DeCSS folks, I'd be quite surprised if they pursued it).
You don't. Try to imagine you are blind and need a speech interface, or that you have bad eye sight and need 48pt fonts to read something, and then be faced with a site that uses needless graphics for navigation, when written words would have done as well, if not better.
Buttons are perfectly acceptable in an accessible site so long as proper design considerations are taken into account. Long before accessibility on the internet was a prime concern, compatibility with text based browsers was a significant concern. Although text based browsers no longer have the market share they once did, the same basic design principles that were relevant to them are now relevent (more or less) to accessibility.
For the vast majority of sites, providing text based links at the bottom of the page should be sufficient. This provides for a nice balance of accessibility and aesthetics. For a site where accessibility is a prime concern (a site on blindness for example), then obviously forgoing buttons altogether may be a better solution.
Two notes though:
1) This whole argument is based on a presumption of good site design. Granted, the vast majority of sites are not particularly well designed, considering form to the exclusion of function, so this comment may not apply in all cases.
2) This is another advantage of using PHP or a similar solution. By seperating the form from the content it's almost trivial to provide graphically rich & graphically light sites for users with different needs. (Nonetheless, note one still applies! Check out Nielsen's book "Designing Wen Usability" for good info.)
i dont trust joker.com. they dont seem to be competant.
Is this a troll, or do you really have a reason to not trust them? My personal experience has been wholly satisfactory, though admittedly, I've not had a problem that's really tested the relationship. But the fact that you're posting anonymously coupled with the fact that you don't actually say WHY you don't trust them makes your comment completely useless...
With the aforementioned http://joker.com you do everything yourself at $15 per year. If you want them to provide one or more name servers add $6 per year/per NS (Though you can get free DIY nameservers at http://soa.granitecanyon.com). I've got half a dozen servers registered through them without a hitch. I wholeheartedly recommend them.
Call me a tight-assed conservative, but I don't think that the government ought to be subsidising the erotic arousal of others. Unless I'm missing a large part of the situation, these groups are calling for blocking software to be put on government libraries' computers. This is not a call to block private transmissions on the Internet.
(I already made this argument in a reply to a reply of this message, but I think it's a particularly good one, so I'l repeat it...)
This argument makes no sense. You're not willing to subsidize my looking at online porn, but you are willing to subsidize my NOT looking at it? Blocking software isn't free. There'll be the obligatory upgrades, etc. Add to that the costs of the legal challenges (and remember, this is probably unconstitutional to begin with... see this article), and very soon my arousal is cheap in comparison.
A bit off-topic, but still related: If you want to know the real costs (both financial & societal) of enforcing these sorts of "Moral Laws", check out Peter McWilliams book "Ain't nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in our Free Country." The full text is available online at www.mcwilliams.com, but the printed book is well worth the price ($8). In particular check out the chapter "It's very expensive" which talks about the financial costs of enforcing laws against consensual crimes (Gambling, drugs, pornography, etc.)
ALL laws legislate morality. The real issue is whose morality they're legislating
Well, yes, that's true, but it's also horribly simplistic. Yes, saying it's illegal to kill someone is also a moral law, but it's primarily a law that is in place to maintain an orderly society. If murder was legal, I could go out & shoot whoever I wanted... That's obviously disruptive to the normal flow of things.
Moral laws are laws that regulate things that do not effect the day-to-day function of society. If I want to look at hustler or smoke a joint, why should the government forbid me too? How do these things effect you? While I can understand the motivation of preventing children from accessing www.hustler.com, the government has no business in preventing ME from doing so.
Of course the obvious reply to that is that you don't want to subsidize me in viewing these sites. But that falls flat pretty quick-- You're not willing to subsidize my viewing them, but you are willing to subsidize my NOT viewing them? Remember, this software ain't free. Add to that cost of all of the legal challenges, etc, & in the end, it will be much cheaper to just mind your own business...
Good point, but I think the 'effort and cash' is worthwhile and well-spent. As a taxpayer, I will vote in favor of restricted access.
While I agree with your sentiment, the execution of most censorware is inherently flawed. I wouldn't object to using "reactive" censorware (sites are only censored if they've explicitly been determined to be pornographic) in libraries. Unfortunately, all censorware that I've ever heard of is "proactive"-- it censors based on a word list, therefore will inherently censor sites that should not be censored, while still letting by sites that should be. Obviously, the problem with "Reactive" censorware of course is that there's so much out there that it would be virtually impossible to keep up with it all, but the first ammendment doesn't allow for proactive software (See this article by Jonathon Wallace).
The one place where I might find it acceptable to use traditional censorware would be on any computers in the childrens areas, but even then, the librarian would have to be able to override the block on request (except on those sites that they specifically deem obscene). Adults using the computers should not be forced to be censored. Any other solution fails the constitutional challenges stated in the above article.
def. Monopoly - A market that exists with only one vendor and barriers such that no other vendors may enter.
While that may be the dictionary of a monopoly, it's not the LEGAL definition. Legally, a company is a monopoly if they are the dominant player, & use monopolistic practices to maintain they're leadership. Whether you support or oppose the lawsuit, if you've read the trial transcripts, it's hard to argue that microsoft hasn't behaved in a rather shady manner in many of their dealings. Should this behaviour be illegal? Well, I think so, but I know all of you Randites will disagree with me...
Where do you draw the line between protecting the musician's interests and giving the consumers value for what they pay for?
SDMI has nothing to do with musicians. Probably 8 out of ten of them oppose it. SDMI exists solely for the major record companies. MP3 has major record companies scared stiff-- not only because of piracy, but more importantly because it allows bands & independent labels to cheaply & easily distribute their music worldwide without the record companies getting their cut. By implementing these kinds of senseless restrictions, the majors hope to kill off any & all forms of digital music distribution. Obviously, in the long run it's a losing battle, but they've got the money, so they won't give up the fight easily.