The leagal and political contexts in which FOSS works are clearly described in a series of documents.
What you are saying is written nowhere and I am sure, even if Mr Reiser was found guilty and jailed, if he could continue contributing from prision I am sure the community would continue benefitting from his input.
And they almost never have to kill anybody. It is such an strange occurence that it would be national news.
YOu guys in the US love your guns, fair enough, but the kind of society your are creating is conditioning you to believe everything can be solved by sheer force and submission of your opossites.
I have a Firefox Window with 20 tabs opened (mostly/. postings I want to check today). That has a foot print of 146MB
I have 2 sessions of IE, that has a foot print of 46MB
Let me open 2 more of each one, pointing lets say, to Google and the BBC.
FF is now, 147MB IE is now 75MB
So
FF is 147MB/22 sessions ~ 6MB/session IE is 75MB/4 sessions ~ 18 MB/session
Now, feel free to throw your anecdotal evidence, but do not tell us that there is a generalized problem unless you can quote serious sources on this regard.
In this little nonsense example it seems that firewall manages far more efficently memory once it is running.
I am pretty sure that launching one session of each would be favourable to IE (well of course, all the MS's kitchen sink is already loaded), but that is not all what memory management is all about.
Transmeta at least has real patents for device that they did introduce to the market and that they want to protect under the current, completely broken, patent system.
You could sign an airtight contract with Ford before showing them your goods, forbiding them, amongst other things, to come with a similar product to the market for at least x years after your demonstration.
If somebody else came with a similar device on his own, society should not be punishing them, they should be encouraged for independent innovation.
British citizens (so far a cracker and some banking executives related to ENRON) are being extradited to the US without proper legal oversight.
A new extradition treaty, signed with, yes, you guessed it, the lame excuse of fighting terrorism, facilitates extradition of Britons to the US.
The problem of the matter is that the US Senate has not ratified the treaty, while in the meantime, quelle surprise, Tony Blair made sure that Britons became subservient to the US legal system. And some Conservatives still whine about the UK independence being eroded... by Europe...
The Spamhaus chappies would be better advised to check their legal bases, they could be extradited without proper checks from the goverment that is suppossed to look after their interests.
They were already dealing with the people that could start lawsuits:
"As its negotiations with Google neared a conclusion, YouTube announced partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corporation and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group. "
They don't have to negotiate with every content owner, only the major ones. All the rest will follow or fall by the wayside.
You may not want that people can now post their crappy videos, but this opens the field fro small time video and film producers to a global audience without much intermediation. That by itself is a very interesting development.
Betting a small amount (in relative term) in an idea that clearly has potential is completely different to 1998. Back then companies were created with little more than a website and marketing, where money was spent in lavish parties and nor in products.
YouTube has something that is clearly working, which is popular, and for this reaons has commercial potential. Completely different to opening a web shop selling pet food and hoping to make millions....
So pray tell us exactly what are you basing your insightful comments on?
Google is making money. Tons of it. More that investors expected. And this on spit of the major shareholders clearly stating that the direction of the company is not driven by profitability alone.
If I would trust a company nowadays to do a clever aquiscition that would be Google.
Their *tracked* record tell us the real history.
Although I agree that exponential growth is not sustainable in the long term, linear growth surely is (heck, is what economy is all about) so I will wait before launching a tirade about a company that clearly gets it.
c) Make a juicy deal with major content providers.
Once you have all the people that count on board, you can diligently take down material of comapnies that don't wanna play with you. Whose loss would that be once all the major companies are Google's bussiness partners?
YouTube was already dealing with the problem that way:
"As its negotiations with Google neared a conclusion, YouTube announced partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corporation and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group. "
"As its negotiations with Google neared a conclusion, YouTube announced partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corporation and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group. "
There are so many differences that it is not even funny.
For starters YouTube nominal value is so small in comparision to the whole of Google's that if they would just shut it down tomorrow there woulod be no substantial loss to Google.
Also the guys that started YouTube become Google employees, by no means they are acceding to the board of directors or anything like it like in the case of the AOL-TIme Warner merger.
And most importantly, you can see some real synergies staring everybody in the face (sorry about my corp-speak) between YouTUbe and Google. These were not so clear between AOL and Time-Warner.
Slashdot Mirror
You really are stretching it.
The leagal and political contexts in which FOSS works are clearly described in a series of documents.
What you are saying is written nowhere and I am sure, even if Mr Reiser was found guilty and jailed, if he could continue contributing from prision I am sure the community would continue benefitting from his input.
Don't be silly.
You may not like it, but during crisis situations one has to discuss how to recover from disaster.
For the particular project that MR Reiser has been heading so succesfuly, it is very legitimate to discuss what needs to be done to keep things going.
Given the openess and visibility of the project this kind of discussions will happen in open forums like this.
And they almost never have to kill anybody. It is such an strange occurence that it would be national news.
YOu guys in the US love your guns, fair enough, but the kind of society your are creating is conditioning you to believe everything can be solved by sheer force and submission of your opossites.
No wonder the Iraq fiasco.
The state applies the laws that society deems acceptable.
In most civilized countries in the world the state does not have the right to execute people.
In the US it does, but it is not absolute and it can be retrived at any time by the lawmakers.
You make it sound like if it is a natural absolute which clearly it isn't.
Two words: Adolf Hitler.
Moron.
I have a Firefox Window with 20 tabs opened (mostly /. postings I want to check today). That has a foot print of 146MB
I have 2 sessions of IE, that has a foot print of 46MB
Let me open 2 more of each one, pointing lets say, to Google and the BBC.
FF is now, 147MB
IE is now 75MB
So
FF is 147MB/22 sessions ~ 6MB/session
IE is 75MB/4 sessions ~ 18 MB/session
Now, feel free to throw your anecdotal evidence, but do not tell us that there is a generalized problem unless you can quote serious sources on this regard.
In this little nonsense example it seems that firewall manages far more efficently memory once it is running.
I am pretty sure that launching one session of each would be favourable to IE (well of course, all the MS's kitchen sink is already loaded), but that is not all what memory management is all about.
SCO are liars.
Transmeta at least has real patents for device that they did introduce to the market and that they want to protect under the current, completely broken, patent system.
It would be good enough it it reaches critical mass (30 to 40 % of the market).
Then it would no longer be an option for MS to ignore standards and they would try to be much more compliant with them.
Which would reopen competition in the browser market once the playing field is leveled.
And thus non patent has merit.
You could sign an airtight contract with Ford before showing them your goods, forbiding them, amongst other things, to come with a similar product to the market for at least x years after your demonstration.
If somebody else came with a similar device on his own, society should not be punishing them, they should be encouraged for independent innovation.
.... why Intel is moving research and development to India....
3 9&from=rss
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/11/13232
If my company had demonstrated is not good at doing business, at least I would like it to benefit science and the advancement of knowledge.
If you fail to sell true innovation then you should allow, even help, others to do so.
Companies are falling all over themselves in order to gain exploration contracts there.
If you kill somebody in say the US, China can't decide unilaterally to judge you for that crime.
Get it now?
British citizens (so far a cracker and some banking executives related to ENRON) are being extradited to the US without proper legal oversight.
... by Europe...
A new extradition treaty, signed with, yes, you guessed it, the lame excuse of fighting terrorism, facilitates extradition of Britons to the US.
The problem of the matter is that the US Senate has not ratified the treaty, while in the meantime, quelle surprise, Tony Blair made sure that Britons became subservient to the US legal system. And some Conservatives still whine about the UK independence being eroded
The Spamhaus chappies would be better advised to check their legal bases, they could be extradited without proper checks from the goverment that is suppossed to look after their interests.
... and he codes it, I don't think there would be any problem.
And video quality may be enough in many circumstances.
Most movies are watched only once or twice, to know that nothing is left behind after the watching is done would be a relief in many cases.
Important messages are not to be sent by email.
This tool has never been designed for that purpose.
Email is a non guaranteed delivery mechanism, you are assuming the wrong conclussions.
They were already dealing with the people that could start lawsuits:
"As its negotiations with Google neared a conclusion, YouTube announced partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corporation and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group. "
They don't have to negotiate with every content owner, only the major ones. All the rest will follow or fall by the wayside.
You may not want that people can now post their crappy videos, but this opens the field fro small time video and film producers to a global audience without much intermediation. That by itself is a very interesting development.
Betting a small amount (in relative term) in an idea that clearly has potential is completely different to 1998. Back then companies were created with little more than a website and marketing, where money was spent in lavish parties and nor in products.
YouTube has something that is clearly working, which is popular, and for this reaons has commercial potential. Completely different to opening a web shop selling pet food and hoping to make millions....
So pray tell us exactly what are you basing your insightful comments on?
Google is making money. Tons of it. More that investors expected. And this on spit of the major shareholders clearly stating that the direction of the company is not driven by profitability alone.
If I would trust a company nowadays to do a clever aquiscition that would be Google.
Their *tracked* record tell us the real history.
Although I agree that exponential growth is not sustainable in the long term, linear growth surely is (heck, is what economy is all about) so I will wait before launching a tirade about a company that clearly gets it.
c) Make a juicy deal with major content providers.
Once you have all the people that count on board, you can diligently take down material of comapnies that don't wanna play with you. Whose loss would that be once all the major companies are Google's bussiness partners?
YouTube was already dealing with the problem that way:
"As its negotiations with Google neared a conclusion, YouTube announced partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corporation and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group. "
"That show was crap"
"Oh my, that rocks! W00t!"
Those sound like criticism to me. Unless you are a snob and want only some kind of scholarly criticism only to be allowed.
.... if you can make a deal?:
"As its negotiations with Google neared a conclusion, YouTube announced partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corporation and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.
Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group. "
The AOL Time Warner deal was a merger.
This is an outright aquiscition.
There are so many differences that it is not even funny.
For starters YouTube nominal value is so small in comparision to the whole of Google's that if they would just shut it down tomorrow there woulod be no substantial loss to Google.
Also the guys that started YouTube become Google employees, by no means they are acceding to the board of directors or anything like it like in the case of the AOL-TIme Warner merger.
And most importantly, you can see some real synergies staring everybody in the face (sorry about my corp-speak) between YouTUbe and Google. These were not so clear between AOL and Time-Warner.