Well, if it were direct elect it could have come down to one vote. So I'm not sure how it is any better? I would gladly have prefered that the coastal states and big cities that voted against Bush would have had more weight, but I'm not sure that it would have been more fair. Direct vote seems like the simple, obvious answer and therefore I'm suspicious of it.
Hmmm... I think direct vote may actually make things even more partisan and unstable. Currently 44% of eligible voters actually vote and in a direct vote that would mean that 51% of that 44% or ~22% would determine the president. At least the electoral college provides some stability. I don't think it is ideal but it is better than a straight direct vote.
Hmmm... clearly if this kid has any brains he would know that he is under scrutiny. So what's he going to do? Spend all day looking for where the logs are kept and trying to get into the machine that stores them. It would be trivial to find out which machine is storing them because a connection has to be opened to his computer at some point and not only that since the logs would be generated on the machine and downloaded, assuming there wasn't a persistent connection for continual download which would also be blatantly obvious, the log file itself would be the perfect vector for malicious code.
For most crackers it is the thrill of defeating someone in power that gets them going. Trying to control him would only encourage him. No, if you can't trust him, then don't hire him, and someone that consistently has moral lapses is clearly not trustworthy.
I'd like to agree, but from a business perspective higher quality software has not been rewarded, historically. It rewards "good enough" software that is first to market unless the requirements of the customer's business (e.g. finance and some government agencies) necessitate high quality code.
In any event you offer a false dichotomy between 'more and worse' or 'fewer and better'. This false dichotomy seems to be predicated on the belief that because programming is difficult on Linux anyone who programs on Linux will be a better programmer. This reasoning is clearly fallacious. There are a lot of great probrammers that work for companies that don't want to spend the extra dev time for Linux.
Also, the reason that having more software available is an advantage is that it increases the installed base which provides leverage in many other areas (e.g. Windows desktop monopoly). Of course, this all assumes that you want Linux to become mainstream.
If I may revert back to high school, "No, duh!" Man, it is totallly revealing how clueless that Microsoft is regarding Linux that it took them this long to figure that out. It was obvious to me about four years ago, despite ALL of the industry rags saying otherwise (i.e. saying Linux is a threat to Windows) that Linux's first victim would be flavors of Unix that had ossified and weren't innovating but were charging huge fees.
The primary reason is that the people supporting these ossified Unixes already had the skill (for the most part) to support Linux. As Linux gained the requisite features it was a relatively simple substitution for the Unix in question.
In order to switch from Windows to Unix, all of your admins would need to be trained or replaced and their salaries would go up. The cost of salaries can in some cases (especially in small to medium sized deployments) add more to TCO than the licensing. That's why some of the first companies to switch to Linux from Windows were huge companies that were paying millions of dollars in licensing fees. They couldn't care less if they were paying a few hundred thousand more in salary when they were paying millions less in licensing fees.
Of course, this begs the question of why they were using windows at all, but it may relate to the cost of development on windows. It is still easier to develop on Windows than on Linux or Unix. That's why many developers prefer Windows and that's why Windows is so appealing. It has tons of software available. Therefore more people are willing to deploy it. That's why Billy Borg Gates is always saying "it's the API, stupid."
Anyhow, Windows will only move upmarket where Unix and Linux rule now, if it can lower its licensing fees, which it is doing (note Malaysia Thailand, etc) or get such a critical mass of software developed on its platform that customers feel compelled to deploy it, which it is doing (note.NET). The biggest threat to the current installed base of Linux is generally recognized as.NET. Linux developers need to develop a competitive offering (Mono, Java, whatever) as a purely defensive move to maintain share, assuming.NET allows developers to do things that they cannot do on any other other platform for a comparable price.
If Linux wants to eat Windows' lunch, it has to become easier to develop on. An IDE needs to be developed that is comparable to Visual Studio. Once the software is easy to develop it will start to happen. It also needs to be at least as easy to use as Windows 2000. People can point out all of the flaws that they want about 2000, but it is good enough and it wins on ease of use for most people. Linux is getting there on ease of use, but it's not quite there yet.
Although, I have to admit that ease of use is less of an issue than getting developpers. Incidentally, this is why Apple hasn't grown share. There is nothing special about MacOSX other than ease of use and that is not enough to get it in the door of any corporation. Apple hardware and software are more expensive and in many cases cannot do as much as the competition or are simply comparable and not significantly (i.e. order of magnitude) better.
So, in sum, it's not Linux that will kill Microsoft. It is the insular, narcissistic, navel-gazing culture that has its blinders on to the rest of the world. They were blind-sided by the Internet, then Linux, and most recently by the "search paradigm". Linux just needs to not fall into the same trap. It can't be just software written by geeks for geeks, assuming people want Linux to succeed, where succeed means being ubiquitous and spreading freedom to everyone. Of course, on technical grounds, Linux in itself is already a success, but so was the DEC Alpha. Listen to the customer!
I think they did this in CA a long time ago...
on
Google's Math Puzzle
·
· Score: 1
When I saw the banner ads in the T station I knew it was for Google. Also, is this really news? I had friends that have no clue about how the Internet works, mathematics, or computer science who were asking me if I saw the google ads in the T station about a week ago.
Agreed, but it is not racist. For the institution to be racist it would have to exclude people based on race. I agree that the system negatively impacts people of one race more than the other, but primarily that is the result of racism in other institutions, for example education and health care, as well as private companies that prevent people of all races from having income parity and access to affordable health care.
Unless of coure you are suggesting that a black male's life expectancy is due to the biology of a black person which of course would make your statements racist and in turn that would mean that Social Security is racist. I don't think that you were suggesting that, however.
If I wanted to consider what you are describing as racism, I would make a distinction between the more blunt and crude racism to which I'm referring and the more accidental, indirect, or de facto "racism" to which you are referring. Otherwise, in my opinion, when other people, even a centrist like me, see you write things like "Social Security is racist" they will not understand what you mean. Just because something disproportionately effects one race doesn't mean that racism is the cause. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't.
This started out interesting, but has begun to degenerate. leftie already said he or she believes in a market based economy. Clearly he or she is not a communist. Does anyone have any facts or is this all anecdotal?
That's not racist. Poverty may be the result of racism, and social security may harm the poor, but Social Security is not a racist system. It is not at all the case that only white people are allowed to receive Social Security. It is a fine but important distinction because the true problem is poverty and racism's role in preventing people from getting out of poverty. Calling Social Security racist amounts to race-baiting and is completely unhelpful.
If yes, then in what way (e.g. fiscal, social, political, econominc, etc)? If not, how would you classify him? Why do you think conservatives are voting for him? Oops, that was three, but the first one isn't that interesting.
First, FWIW, the PowerPC version would only allow MacOSX to play Linux/x86 games, not Windows games, which is kind of strange. If they were going to lie, why not go all the way?
Second, the concept isn't totally outrageous. It sounds analogous to what was done with x86 chips. There is an x86 front end but a RISC-like core that works because of grouping instructions. With the right kind of abstraction it might work, but I'm not holding my breath.
I agree, but you'll never convince a religious person. Until everyone agress that science is the best indicator of truth that we have, we will have to endure more foolishness like Kansas' Board of Education's decision to teach creationism. I don't understand why religious institutions continue to put forward arguments about the natural world. These institutions have been consistently been shown to be wrong in every case. It undermines what authority they have over spiritual matters for rational people.
I didn't RTFA, yet, but based on the review inclusiveness isn't mentioned. It's easy to educate the elite very well, but getting a minimal level of education for all Americans has been the battle for the last 150 years, especially for the last thirty years. It's only natural now that we have most people attending school that we can focus on making the quality of the education better. Perhaps no education is better than a mediocre one, but that is a moot discussion at this point. The question is how we go from mediocre to good and then great.
"A lot of important science raises serious questions that make people of many religions uncomfortable. But it should still be taught, undistorted. It should be taught specifically for the reason that it challenges religious belief: after all, that which is challenged and survives becomes stronger in the process, and if it does not survive, then arguably it *should* be destroyed."
The premises of this argument are scientific ones: evolution and the scientific method. The other side of the argument is that these "falsifications" (e.g. evolution, etc.) are seductive lies and children should not be tempted by them. For some of the more literal religious, truth can only be revealed, not discovered or tested. I don't disagree with you, but the grounds of your argument prejudices the conclusion in your favor.
You completely misunderstood me. Go back and actually read what I wrote. If a student writes such and such is the case because Encyclopedia Britannica says that the person who wrote the article is an authority and s/he says such an such is this case, then that is an appeal to authority. Of course, one could argue that EB has the requisite credentials to guarantee that the author is an authority, but that is debatable.
Most people trust the EB because it is there and has been for two centuries. It's authority rests on tradition which is no authority at all. See, the problem with authority is that it is questionable until a "fact" is "verified" by "experience". Most people never bother to bring the question back to the things themselves.
In fact, current trends in education encourage students to be excellent regurgitators of other people's opinions, but not to have any real knowledge. They are more or less rewarded for being parrots.
Did anyone else notice the irony of the librarian's statement about developing critical thinking skills and her statement that students are very surprised about the Wikipedia not being authoritative. Now, on a charitable read, she may be saying that she has her students check the authority of all sources in order to determine bias, etc., but I think she means that she only wants them to use "authoritative" sources.
Well, accepting authority as truth is actually the first impediment to critical thinking. Maybe the students should be learning critical thinking skills in a logic class instead of from a librarian? If she said she teaches them research skills, then fine, but that's not the same thing as critical thinking.
I never use the wikipedia as a final word on anything. It's just a nice, *free* place to *start* my research. Sometimes the content is totally useless and other times it's very helpful.
That's the problem with this article. There is enough detail to think the person writing it knows what they are talking about, but there isn't enough detail to understand how they are going to make Office into a service. At this point, I doubt even Microsoft knows in detail at this point. This article is basically a bit of publicity and marketing for Microsoft and a fluffy filler piece for the site / magazine. In short, it's a waste of bits.
"In the interest of ending conflicts conclusively and quickly, disproportional responses are necessary and good."
Yes, when dealing with an enemy, not your own fellow citizens who are exercising their freedoms. Poportional response also includes the idea of only "responding" to those that initially caused a disruption beyond what their freedom allows, not innocent bystanders. To be honest, I don't think there would have been much of an outcry if the police only beat the snot out of those so-called anarchists who threw rocks at police and destroyed property, even though such beatings would be wrong, but the fact is the police used force indiscriminately like a pack of dogs on a hunt that smell blood.
Have you ever heard of proportionate response? You know, it's when people who have weapons don't use those weapons against people who don't have them, not to mention body armor and the National Guard to back them up, or if they do use them, they use them only against those causing problems, not indiscriminately against everyone.
Notice the Walker Report calls it a "police riot", not a student riot or anything else.
Seattle was a little different, as there was intent by a minority of the people there to cause some serious harm to property and persons, but once again lack of police discipline in exercising a proportionate response, inluding beating innocent bystanders, result in unecessary physical harm to protestors. There isn't much hope for law and order when your own police are disordered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Meeting_of_1999
Similar stuff happend in Miami for FTAA. The DNC was quiet because the police, due to a tip-off, managed to seize all of the urine, blood, faeces, etc. that the anarchists were going to use. I'm not sure how many anarchists were seized as well and held until the DNC was over, but I imagine there were quite a few.
The sad part is that it probably doesn't matter to you what the facts are. You like this current Republican administration only use apparent facts to support whatever your current agenda is and if those facts change, you just find or make up new ones to support your position without even considering changing your position. That is the definition of an idealogue, in other words someone who irrational believes in something, exactly what folks like you call, and rightfully so, the anarchists. So maybe you and the anarchists have more in common than you thought?
I know you are kidding, but your joke points out somethng interesting. You said desktop applications, not enterprise applications. That's where Sun's time in the sun (haha) served it well. Many enterprise class applications were made to run on Solaris or ported to it. That's where it has MacOS X beat hands down. The other stuff that Solaris can do (e.g. scale to 128+ processors, etc) is important, but not crucial.
Anyhow, I don't think any of this has anything to do with Apple. It's clearly IBM that Sun is after. First they say they will 'buy Linux' (i.e. SuSe) which is IBM's Linux vendor of choice and now they are saying they will also invade IBM's hardware. Good luck to Sun. Competition is good for everyone, except the losers of course.
Next they need to license all of the government funded research to companies and use the revenue to lower taxes instead of giving away research funded by our taxes to some bozo to make a billion dollars. We also need to stop allowing private universites to license government funded research. There are too many professors that do government funded research and then make a bundle off the research after they quit their jobs and start new companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it were direct elect it could have come down to one vote. So I'm not sure how it is any better? I would gladly have prefered that the coastal states and big cities that voted against Bush would have had more weight, but I'm not sure that it would have been more fair. Direct vote seems like the simple, obvious answer and therefore I'm suspicious of it.
Hmmm... I think direct vote may actually make things even more partisan and unstable. Currently 44% of eligible voters actually vote and in a direct vote that would mean that 51% of that 44% or ~22% would determine the president. At least the electoral college provides some stability. I don't think it is ideal but it is better than a straight direct vote.
Hmmm... clearly if this kid has any brains he would know that he is under scrutiny. So what's he going to do? Spend all day looking for where the logs are kept and trying to get into the machine that stores them. It would be trivial to find out which machine is storing them because a connection has to be opened to his computer at some point and not only that since the logs would be generated on the machine and downloaded, assuming there wasn't a persistent connection for continual download which would also be blatantly obvious, the log file itself would be the perfect vector for malicious code.
For most crackers it is the thrill of defeating someone in power that gets them going. Trying to control him would only encourage him. No, if you can't trust him, then don't hire him, and someone that consistently has moral lapses is clearly not trustworthy.
Not to be pedantic...
I'd like to agree, but from a business perspective higher quality software has not been rewarded, historically. It rewards "good enough" software that is first to market unless the requirements of the customer's business (e.g. finance and some government agencies) necessitate high quality code.
In any event you offer a false dichotomy between 'more and worse' or 'fewer and better'. This false dichotomy seems to be predicated on the belief that because programming is difficult on Linux anyone who programs on Linux will be a better programmer. This reasoning is clearly fallacious. There are a lot of great probrammers that work for companies that don't want to spend the extra dev time for Linux.
Also, the reason that having more software available is an advantage is that it increases the installed base which provides leverage in many other areas (e.g. Windows desktop monopoly). Of course, this all assumes that you want Linux to become mainstream.
If I may revert back to high school, "No, duh!" Man, it is totallly revealing how clueless that Microsoft is regarding Linux that it took them this long to figure that out. It was obvious to me about four years ago, despite ALL of the industry rags saying otherwise (i.e. saying Linux is a threat to Windows) that Linux's first victim would be flavors of Unix that had ossified and weren't innovating but were charging huge fees.
.NET). The biggest threat to the current installed base of Linux is generally recognized as .NET. Linux developers need to develop a competitive offering (Mono, Java, whatever) as a purely defensive move to maintain share, assuming .NET allows developers to do things that they cannot do on any other other platform for a comparable price.
The primary reason is that the people supporting these ossified Unixes already had the skill (for the most part) to support Linux. As Linux gained the requisite features it was a relatively simple substitution for the Unix in question.
In order to switch from Windows to Unix, all of your admins would need to be trained or replaced and their salaries would go up. The cost of salaries can in some cases (especially in small to medium sized deployments) add more to TCO than the licensing. That's why some of the first companies to switch to Linux from Windows were huge companies that were paying millions of dollars in licensing fees. They couldn't care less if they were paying a few hundred thousand more in salary when they were paying millions less in licensing fees.
Of course, this begs the question of why they were using windows at all, but it may relate to the cost of development on windows. It is still easier to develop on Windows than on Linux or Unix. That's why many developers prefer Windows and that's why Windows is so appealing. It has tons of software available. Therefore more people are willing to deploy it. That's why Billy Borg Gates is always saying "it's the API, stupid."
Anyhow, Windows will only move upmarket where Unix and Linux rule now, if it can lower its licensing fees, which it is doing (note Malaysia Thailand, etc) or get such a critical mass of software developed on its platform that customers feel compelled to deploy it, which it is doing (note
If Linux wants to eat Windows' lunch, it has to become easier to develop on. An IDE needs to be developed that is comparable to Visual Studio. Once the software is easy to develop it will start to happen. It also needs to be at least as easy to use as Windows 2000. People can point out all of the flaws that they want about 2000, but it is good enough and it wins on ease of use for most people. Linux is getting there on ease of use, but it's not quite there yet.
Although, I have to admit that ease of use is less of an issue than getting developpers. Incidentally, this is why Apple hasn't grown share. There is nothing special about MacOSX other than ease of use and that is not enough to get it in the door of any corporation. Apple hardware and software are more expensive and in many cases cannot do as much as the competition or are simply comparable and not significantly (i.e. order of magnitude) better.
So, in sum, it's not Linux that will kill Microsoft. It is the insular, narcissistic, navel-gazing culture that has its blinders on to the rest of the world. They were blind-sided by the Internet, then Linux, and most recently by the "search paradigm". Linux just needs to not fall into the same trap. It can't be just software written by geeks for geeks, assuming people want Linux to succeed, where succeed means being ubiquitous and spreading freedom to everyone. Of course, on technical grounds, Linux in itself is already a success, but so was the DEC Alpha. Listen to the customer!
When I saw the banner ads in the T station I knew it was for Google. Also, is this really news? I had friends that have no clue about how the Internet works, mathematics, or computer science who were asking me if I saw the google ads in the T station about a week ago.
Agreed, but it is not racist. For the institution to be racist it would have to exclude people based on race. I agree that the system negatively impacts people of one race more than the other, but primarily that is the result of racism in other institutions, for example education and health care, as well as private companies that prevent people of all races from having income parity and access to affordable health care.
Unless of coure you are suggesting that a black male's life expectancy is due to the biology of a black person which of course would make your statements racist and in turn that would mean that Social Security is racist. I don't think that you were suggesting that, however.
If I wanted to consider what you are describing as racism, I would make a distinction between the more blunt and crude racism to which I'm referring and the more accidental, indirect, or de facto "racism" to which you are referring. Otherwise, in my opinion, when other people, even a centrist like me, see you write things like "Social Security is racist" they will not understand what you mean. Just because something disproportionately effects one race doesn't mean that racism is the cause. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't.
This started out interesting, but has begun to degenerate. leftie already said he or she believes in a market based economy. Clearly he or she is not a communist. Does anyone have any facts or is this all anecdotal?
It would be interesting if the money was actually invested in bonds. Maybe people would actually care what the government is doing.
That's not racist. Poverty may be the result of racism, and social security may harm the poor, but Social Security is not a racist system. It is not at all the case that only white people are allowed to receive Social Security. It is a fine but important distinction because the true problem is poverty and racism's role in preventing people from getting out of poverty. Calling Social Security racist amounts to race-baiting and is completely unhelpful.
If yes, then in what way (e.g. fiscal, social, political, econominc, etc)? If not, how would you classify him? Why do you think conservatives are voting for him? Oops, that was three, but the first one isn't that interesting.
First, FWIW, the PowerPC version would only allow MacOSX to play Linux/x86 games, not Windows games, which is kind of strange. If they were going to lie, why not go all the way?
Second, the concept isn't totally outrageous. It sounds analogous to what was done with x86 chips. There is an x86 front end but a RISC-like core that works because of grouping instructions. With the right kind of abstraction it might work, but I'm not holding my breath.
I agree, but you'll never convince a religious person. Until everyone agress that science is the best indicator of truth that we have, we will have to endure more foolishness like Kansas' Board of Education's decision to teach creationism. I don't understand why religious institutions continue to put forward arguments about the natural world. These institutions have been consistently been shown to be wrong in every case. It undermines what authority they have over spiritual matters for rational people.
I didn't RTFA, yet, but based on the review inclusiveness isn't mentioned. It's easy to educate the elite very well, but getting a minimal level of education for all Americans has been the battle for the last 150 years, especially for the last thirty years. It's only natural now that we have most people attending school that we can focus on making the quality of the education better. Perhaps no education is better than a mediocre one, but that is a moot discussion at this point. The question is how we go from mediocre to good and then great.
"A lot of important science raises serious questions that make people of many religions uncomfortable. But it should still be taught, undistorted. It should be taught specifically for the reason that it challenges religious belief: after all, that which is challenged and survives becomes stronger in the process, and if it does not survive, then arguably it *should* be destroyed."
The premises of this argument are scientific ones: evolution and the scientific method. The other side of the argument is that these "falsifications" (e.g. evolution, etc.) are seductive lies and children should not be tempted by them. For some of the more literal religious, truth can only be revealed, not discovered or tested. I don't disagree with you, but the grounds of your argument prejudices the conclusion in your favor.
You completely misunderstood me. Go back and actually read what I wrote. If a student writes such and such is the case because Encyclopedia Britannica says that the person who wrote the article is an authority and s/he says such an such is this case, then that is an appeal to authority. Of course, one could argue that EB has the requisite credentials to guarantee that the author is an authority, but that is debatable.
Most people trust the EB because it is there and has been for two centuries. It's authority rests on tradition which is no authority at all. See, the problem with authority is that it is questionable until a "fact" is "verified" by "experience". Most people never bother to bring the question back to the things themselves.
In fact, current trends in education encourage students to be excellent regurgitators of other people's opinions, but not to have any real knowledge. They are more or less rewarded for being parrots.
Did anyone else notice the irony of the librarian's statement about developing critical thinking skills and her statement that students are very surprised about the Wikipedia not being authoritative. Now, on a charitable read, she may be saying that she has her students check the authority of all sources in order to determine bias, etc., but I think she means that she only wants them to use "authoritative" sources.
Well, accepting authority as truth is actually the first impediment to critical thinking. Maybe the students should be learning critical thinking skills in a logic class instead of from a librarian? If she said she teaches them research skills, then fine, but that's not the same thing as critical thinking.
I never use the wikipedia as a final word on anything. It's just a nice, *free* place to *start* my research. Sometimes the content is totally useless and other times it's very helpful.
That's the problem with this article. There is enough detail to think the person writing it knows what they are talking about, but there isn't enough detail to understand how they are going to make Office into a service. At this point, I doubt even Microsoft knows in detail at this point. This article is basically a bit of publicity and marketing for Microsoft and a fluffy filler piece for the site / magazine. In short, it's a waste of bits.
Agreed.
"In the interest of ending conflicts conclusively and quickly, disproportional responses are necessary and good."
Yes, when dealing with an enemy, not your own fellow citizens who are exercising their freedoms. Poportional response also includes the idea of only "responding" to those that initially caused a disruption beyond what their freedom allows, not innocent bystanders. To be honest, I don't think there would have been much of an outcry if the police only beat the snot out of those so-called anarchists who threw rocks at police and destroyed property, even though such beatings would be wrong, but the fact is the police used force indiscriminately like a pack of dogs on a hunt that smell blood.
Have you ever heard of proportionate response? You know, it's when people who have weapons don't use those weapons against people who don't have them, not to mention body armor and the National Guard to back them up, or if they do use them, they use them only against those causing problems, not indiscriminately against everyone.
t io nal_Convention
9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_Na
Notice the Walker Report calls it a "police riot", not a student riot or anything else.
Seattle was a little different, as there was intent by a minority of the people there to cause some serious harm to property and persons, but once again lack of police discipline in exercising a proportionate response, inluding beating innocent bystanders, result in unecessary physical harm to protestors. There isn't much hope for law and order when your own police are disordered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Meeting_of_199
Similar stuff happend in Miami for FTAA. The DNC was quiet because the police, due to a tip-off, managed to seize all of the urine, blood, faeces, etc. that the anarchists were going to use. I'm not sure how many anarchists were seized as well and held until the DNC was over, but I imagine there were quite a few.
The sad part is that it probably doesn't matter to you what the facts are. You like this current Republican administration only use apparent facts to support whatever your current agenda is and if those facts change, you just find or make up new ones to support your position without even considering changing your position. That is the definition of an idealogue, in other words someone who irrational believes in something, exactly what folks like you call, and rightfully so, the anarchists. So maybe you and the anarchists have more in common than you thought?
Profit margins are much higher on software than hardware, and that's not incudling services.
I know you are kidding, but your joke points out somethng interesting. You said desktop applications, not enterprise applications. That's where Sun's time in the sun (haha) served it well. Many enterprise class applications were made to run on Solaris or ported to it. That's where it has MacOS X beat hands down. The other stuff that Solaris can do (e.g. scale to 128+ processors, etc) is important, but not crucial.
Anyhow, I don't think any of this has anything to do with Apple. It's clearly IBM that Sun is after. First they say they will 'buy Linux' (i.e. SuSe) which is IBM's Linux vendor of choice and now they are saying they will also invade IBM's hardware. Good luck to Sun. Competition is good for everyone, except the losers of course.
Next they need to license all of the government funded research to companies and use the revenue to lower taxes instead of giving away research funded by our taxes to some bozo to make a billion dollars. We also need to stop allowing private universites to license government funded research. There are too many professors that do government funded research and then make a bundle off the research after they quit their jobs and start new companies.
s p? IssueID=332&Article=1860
http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.a