Also, it's pedantic, but the word free means "costing nothing", which categorically excludes ad-supported content that has non-monetary costs (namely attention). The spelling of the marketing requires exclamation points and an asterisk in addition to being in all caps. =P
Are you saying "time is money"? Then technically *nothing* is free, because there is always the opportunity cost of time. But that's a little beyond standard pedantism;)
Um, nice superfluous use of too many unsupported numbers;) But that wasn't what the article was about at ALL.
These web sites are FREE and AD SUPPORTED, and without ads they would not exist. That isn't the issue. It's that Flash versions reduced the battery life by 30% vs the same ad supported sites with static ads.
Then the story changes to "Ads Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life".
It's really more like "Flash Ads Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life". The non-Flash ads don't, and that's what makes the story vaguely (but barely) interesting...
When the intent is to touch the genitals, then is the intent to search or commit a sexual assault.
Eh, not sure about that. Otherwise, every routine physical exam could also be a felony. And doctors don't always stop at "resistance"... (hey doc, using the whole fist? Mooooon riiverrr...)
This proposal isn't about giving programmers more power to code, it's about making it easier for non-english speakers who aren't coders to read the code that their programmers write.
No, actually, it's not. Java already allows Unicode variable and function names. This is about using Unicode in basic syntax of the language, which is IMO idiotic if you ever want your language to be adopted. I mean, he says it himself in the last paragraph - he didn't use any Unicode in his article because he was using vi, which makes it difficult - not to mention even if it was doable, it would be tedious as hell with a standard keyboard.
Our average blue collar (often union) worker in NO WAY works harder than the average Chinese contemporary, be it factory, trucking, construction/public works, etc. And in the rare cases they do, they get time and a half to double time.
Not that I think that's a slight on the American worker or noble sacrifice by the Chinese worker... it's just a fact. They work their asses off for fractional pay (even adjusted for cost of living) with almost no benefits, little to no overtime, and often, no life whatsoever outside of work. If we don't acknowledge and understand that fact then we're never going to fix it on either end.
Personally, I think it sucks. But the only way to improve the situation is to get EVERYONE involved. I'm tired of peopple who blame "the corporations" and then go to the cheapest discount store to buy the cheapest products available. The fact is, these companies build what sells the best, and apparently price matters more than anything else. As long as the collective American consumer market has that attitude nothing will change, and it's not the responsibility of the "corporate interests" to solve it.
By "everyone else" I meant companies making cell phones or cell phone OSes. Microsoft, Nokia, Ericsson, Palm, Apple, NTT DoCoMo, Symbian, etc (I'm sure I missed another dozen). And this isn't recent, most of them licensed or cross-licensed several years ago. I guess I should have stated more clearly that I am *not* endorsing their patents or software patents in general, just pointing out the state of things. And pointing out that yes, this is about Taiwanese companies trying to make cheaper phones by avoiding the fees everyone else is - ok *paying*, whether they agree they are valid or not. Jeez, people get defensive around here:)
Anyway, once you start making cell phones I'm sure they will try to sue you, too. If you have your own patents, you are probably safe. If you are like the Taiwanese companies and stamp out Android reference designs, you should probably hire some good lawyers...
At first I thought you were arguing that since the proliferation of nukes, there have been a lot less *actual* tigers. Which weirdly, is not only true, but largely caused by the countries you mention!
Yeah, I'm sure a couple dozen kids spending a few hours a week in a small, undersupplied shop with maybe a few usable machines per class can build and maintain 5000+ desks for each school district. All while doing it more cheaply than some factory in China paying employees a couple dollars a day...
Europe, India, China. I think most inhabitants of our planet still live in jurisdictions that would not recognize such a patent.
Thanks for taking the quote completely out of context. From my examples, I wasn't talking about countries, I was talking about companies.
Nokia/Symbian, Ericsson = Europe (both have licensed or cross-licensed these patents) NTT, TurboLinux = Japan (same) HTC = Taiwan
China and India don't usually bother to license hardware patents when they sell domestically, so it's kind of irrelevant there. But once they start selling these devices in countries that do care, it will be a different story...
Anyway, I am in NO way claiming the MS patents are valid, or even that software patents are a good thing in general. Just reinforcing that this article has nothing to do with licensing *Linux*.
And that legally, yes, Microsoft (and Apple, and Nokia, and NTT, etc) has a right to try to enforce their patents, as other companies have the right to try to overturn them.
Looking up the details, the patents are for "synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power". Last I checked, none of those are included in the Linux kernel - they are part of the Android middleware/OS, and/or apps the vendors added.
In fact, a bit more research shows that yes, Symbian, Palm, Nokia, and some other Linux embedded vendors are in fact already licensing the patents (and have been for *years* - the first article I found was from 2005). And Apple has patent cross licensing agreements with Microsoft (and likely all of those other companies) as well. This is about Taiwanese companies trying to make cheap phones by avoiding the patent license fees everyone else has already agreed are valid. And those companies probably also violate Apple patents (in Apple's opinion, at least) - to that matter, Apple has already sued HTC (a Taiwanese company paying MS fees now as well) for this.
Hmm, I can't figure out to what in the parent post you are saying "it depends". He was saying the summary is twisted and wrong, which it is - this has nothing to do with Linux, and everything to do with using *any* OS that doesn't involve paying a royalty to MS.
If they feel that their patents are valid, they have a right to demand license fees. And everyone has a right to ignore them and settle it in court. But "Microsoft Charging Royalties for Linux" is just a HORRIBLE title given the article referenced.
When hitting you can probably judge whether you got a powerful hit or a chopper
Yep... you have obviously never actually PLAYED baseball at any competitive level. The only people who actually use statistics like you quote are statisticians and armchair fantasy baseball nerds.
It's not a video game - a single or double doesn't usually depend on how hard you hit the ball. It depends on the location (which is as much luck as anything) and more importantly how the outfielder was playing you vs where the ball went.
Even when it seems "obvious" (off the wall, etc) you almost always base the decision to go to 2nd from the 1st base coach's direction. You make contact, start running at fast as you can, everyone starts looking, and you are basically over 1/2 way to 1st base before anyone figures out where the ball ended up. And a lot of the time you are not the only one running - you (and the base coaches) have to look out for other runners, figure out what they are going to do, and watch the outfielder, cutoff man, etc, to know where the ball is coming in.
Trying to plan for the exact base and route to it (beyond the usual wide turn that any little leaguer already knows) from the moment you make contact is about as useful as planning where you are going to swing before the pitch. It's NOT a video game...
Modded, funny, but should be modded insightful (since it's what I was going to post;)
The whole point that makes this article useless is that the optimal path requires perfect knowledge of the target base from the start, and that's just not how baseball works.
It just shows the difference between the exact science of mathematics, and the heuristics of game theory/statistics, etc. The average (ok slightly above average) player hits maybe 25 doubles and a couple of triples, vs over 150 singles. So, statistics say they should really just make sure they get to first base. Anyone who knows baseball knows most doubles are stand-up, ie. it's in the gap and is pretty clear once the outfielder can't get it. Triples are honestly the only time you might even want to worry about it, yet the odds of getting in that situation are so low it's just not worth worrying about.
Besides, the "standard line" for running the bases has always been to gradually loop out for a wide curve when you think you may have a shot at the next base. If they are saying it could be extended a few feet given perfect knowledge of the result - again, BFD. Players *already* try that with imperfect knowledge, sometimes to great or tragic results.
Yeah, that's the *other* problem... the networks have so far treated Internet streaming of shows as an oddity that they need to get involved in to be relevant. But now that they think people may actually use it as their *primary* source of content, they are confused and terrified.
As for integrating into DVRs - that would be interesting. But the DVR industry is basically made up of 2 camps today - the innovative, struggling companies (Tivo, Moxi, etc) relying on govt regulations like CableCard to survive at all. And the big, bloated cable hardware suppliers (General Instruments aka Motorola, and Scientific Atlanta aka Cisco) that have no concept of user interface or quality control, but have enough influence to dominate the OEM cable box market.
In the end, though, content availability is all about the providers/owners feeling comfortable with the (revenue from the) distribution model. Can they make a profit with free online content with ads? Do they get enough share from an iTunes transaction? Will they get enough of a cut from a monthly fee in a subscription service? It's going to be an interesting battle...
I think people are just worried that useful/critical core OS features will only be available to App Store apps. If that's not the case, then most of the concerns are not really warranted...
You're asking then not merely to allow competition with their app store, but essentially say to potential competitors: "Hey look, we did most of the work for you. All the API's are there and you can hook into them.
So customers are required to pay $130 each time they release an OS update but they shouldn't expect OS APIs to be available for the apps they want to use? I'm not talking hosting server disk space or bandwidth, just accessing APIs. Somehow this "hard work" is different from all of the other APIs?
Anyway, I agree with many of your points, as yes, they aren't restricting other app management systems, they are just creating what will be the 800 lb gorilla de facto one. IMO it's a lot more more "monopolistic" (especially givens Apple's current success) than Microsoft's "browser integration" issue, for which they were fined heavily and required to include every browser under the sun in their OS install.
Should Steam, Direct2Drive, etc (and IE or other browsers for that matter!) now be required options in OSX? Because as you said, it's just not good business to let someone compete with you if you don't have to - that's why governments stepped in with the MS situation...
Slashdot Mirror
So, what is there about any of his points made that the video (which yes, he watched, along with many others who agree with him) so clearly disputes?
It sounds like the Colonel has finally executed his scheme to make you crrraaaave it fortnightly!
Also, it's pedantic, but the word free means "costing nothing", which categorically excludes ad-supported content that has non-monetary costs (namely attention). The spelling of the marketing requires exclamation points and an asterisk in addition to being in all caps. =P
Are you saying "time is money"? Then technically *nothing* is free, because there is always the opportunity cost of time. But that's a little beyond standard pedantism ;)
Yeah, salted roads is nothing new in the US, either ;)
120 SQ KM OF SALT on the other hand, is interesting...
Um, nice superfluous use of too many unsupported numbers ;) But that wasn't what the article was about at ALL.
These web sites are FREE and AD SUPPORTED, and without ads they would not exist. That isn't the issue. It's that Flash versions reduced the battery life by 30% vs the same ad supported sites with static ads.
Then the story changes to "Ads Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life".
It's really more like "Flash Ads Can Rob 2 Hours From MacBook Air's Battery Life". The non-Flash ads don't, and that's what makes the story vaguely (but barely) interesting...
Cheetos?
When the intent is to touch the genitals, then is the intent to search or commit a sexual assault.
Eh, not sure about that. Otherwise, every routine physical exam could also be a felony. And doctors don't always stop at "resistance"... (hey doc, using the whole fist? Mooooon riiverrr...)
This proposal isn't about giving programmers more power to code, it's about making it easier for non-english speakers who aren't coders to read the code that their programmers write.
No, actually, it's not. Java already allows Unicode variable and function names. This is about using Unicode in basic syntax of the language, which is IMO idiotic if you ever want your language to be adopted. I mean, he says it himself in the last paragraph - he didn't use any Unicode in his article because he was using vi, which makes it difficult - not to mention even if it was doable, it would be tedious as hell with a standard keyboard.
Our average blue collar (often union) worker in NO WAY works harder than the average Chinese contemporary, be it factory, trucking, construction/public works, etc. And in the rare cases they do, they get time and a half to double time.
Not that I think that's a slight on the American worker or noble sacrifice by the Chinese worker... it's just a fact. They work their asses off for fractional pay (even adjusted for cost of living) with almost no benefits, little to no overtime, and often, no life whatsoever outside of work. If we don't acknowledge and understand that fact then we're never going to fix it on either end.
Personally, I think it sucks. But the only way to improve the situation is to get EVERYONE involved. I'm tired of peopple who blame "the corporations" and then go to the cheapest discount store to buy the cheapest products available. The fact is, these companies build what sells the best, and apparently price matters more than anything else. As long as the collective American consumer market has that attitude nothing will change, and it's not the responsibility of the "corporate interests" to solve it.
Close - but the unicorns aren't killed, they are tended in their later years by the sisters at Radiant Farms until they pass naturally.
By "everyone else" I meant companies making cell phones or cell phone OSes. Microsoft, Nokia, Ericsson, Palm, Apple, NTT DoCoMo, Symbian, etc (I'm sure I missed another dozen). And this isn't recent, most of them licensed or cross-licensed several years ago. I guess I should have stated more clearly that I am *not* endorsing their patents or software patents in general, just pointing out the state of things. And pointing out that yes, this is about Taiwanese companies trying to make cheaper phones by avoiding the fees everyone else is - ok *paying*, whether they agree they are valid or not. Jeez, people get defensive around here :)
Anyway, once you start making cell phones I'm sure they will try to sue you, too. If you have your own patents, you are probably safe. If you are like the Taiwanese companies and stamp out Android reference designs, you should probably hire some good lawyers...
At first I thought you were arguing that since the proliferation of nukes, there have been a lot less *actual* tigers. Which weirdly, is not only true, but largely caused by the countries you mention!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Tiger_distribution3.PNG
Yeah, I'm sure a couple dozen kids spending a few hours a week in a small, undersupplied shop with maybe a few usable machines per class can build and maintain 5000+ desks for each school district. All while doing it more cheaply than some factory in China paying employees a couple dollars a day...
Europe, India, China. I think most inhabitants of our planet still live in jurisdictions that would not recognize such a patent.
Thanks for taking the quote completely out of context. From my examples, I wasn't talking about countries, I was talking about companies.
Nokia/Symbian, Ericsson = Europe (both have licensed or cross-licensed these patents)
NTT, TurboLinux = Japan (same)
HTC = Taiwan
China and India don't usually bother to license hardware patents when they sell domestically, so it's kind of irrelevant there. But once they start selling these devices in countries that do care, it will be a different story...
Anyway, I am in NO way claiming the MS patents are valid, or even that software patents are a good thing in general. Just reinforcing that this article has nothing to do with licensing *Linux*.
And that legally, yes, Microsoft (and Apple, and Nokia, and NTT, etc) has a right to try to enforce their patents, as other companies have the right to try to overturn them.
Looking up the details, the patents are for "synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power". Last I checked, none of those are included in the Linux kernel - they are part of the Android middleware/OS, and/or apps the vendors added.
In fact, a bit more research shows that yes, Symbian, Palm, Nokia, and some other Linux embedded vendors are in fact already licensing the patents (and have been for *years* - the first article I found was from 2005). And Apple has patent cross licensing agreements with Microsoft (and likely all of those other companies) as well. This is about Taiwanese companies trying to make cheap phones by avoiding the patent license fees everyone else has already agreed are valid. And those companies probably also violate Apple patents (in Apple's opinion, at least) - to that matter, Apple has already sued HTC (a Taiwanese company paying MS fees now as well) for this.
Hmm, I can't figure out to what in the parent post you are saying "it depends". He was saying the summary is twisted and wrong, which it is - this has nothing to do with Linux, and everything to do with using *any* OS that doesn't involve paying a royalty to MS.
If they feel that their patents are valid, they have a right to demand license fees. And everyone has a right to ignore them and settle it in court. But "Microsoft Charging Royalties for Linux" is just a HORRIBLE title given the article referenced.
Actually, both of those pages would be an improvement over the current MySpace.
And almost not surprisingly, someone has actually researched that...
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/iphone-users-have-more-sex/
When hitting you can probably judge whether you got a powerful hit or a chopper
Yep... you have obviously never actually PLAYED baseball at any competitive level. The only people who actually use statistics like you quote are statisticians and armchair fantasy baseball nerds.
It's not a video game - a single or double doesn't usually depend on how hard you hit the ball. It depends on the location (which is as much luck as anything) and more importantly how the outfielder was playing you vs where the ball went.
Even when it seems "obvious" (off the wall, etc) you almost always base the decision to go to 2nd from the 1st base coach's direction. You make contact, start running at fast as you can, everyone starts looking, and you are basically over 1/2 way to 1st base before anyone figures out where the ball ended up. And a lot of the time you are not the only one running - you (and the base coaches) have to look out for other runners, figure out what they are going to do, and watch the outfielder, cutoff man, etc, to know where the ball is coming in.
Trying to plan for the exact base and route to it (beyond the usual wide turn that any little leaguer already knows) from the moment you make contact is about as useful as planning where you are going to swing before the pitch. It's NOT a video game...
Modded, funny, but should be modded insightful (since it's what I was going to post ;)
The whole point that makes this article useless is that the optimal path requires perfect knowledge of the target base from the start, and that's just not how baseball works.
It just shows the difference between the exact science of mathematics, and the heuristics of game theory/statistics, etc. The average (ok slightly above average) player hits maybe 25 doubles and a couple of triples, vs over 150 singles. So, statistics say they should really just make sure they get to first base. Anyone who knows baseball knows most doubles are stand-up, ie. it's in the gap and is pretty clear once the outfielder can't get it. Triples are honestly the only time you might even want to worry about it, yet the odds of getting in that situation are so low it's just not worth worrying about.
Besides, the "standard line" for running the bases has always been to gradually loop out for a wide curve when you think you may have a shot at the next base. If they are saying it could be extended a few feet given perfect knowledge of the result - again, BFD. Players *already* try that with imperfect knowledge, sometimes to great or tragic results.
Yup, happens to me with Chrome for Linux (Fedora) as well as Windows XP and 7. Pretty annoying...
Yeah, that's the *other* problem... the networks have so far treated Internet streaming of shows as an oddity that they need to get involved in to be relevant. But now that they think people may actually use it as their *primary* source of content, they are confused and terrified.
As for integrating into DVRs - that would be interesting. But the DVR industry is basically made up of 2 camps today - the innovative, struggling companies (Tivo, Moxi, etc) relying on govt regulations like CableCard to survive at all. And the big, bloated cable hardware suppliers (General Instruments aka Motorola, and Scientific Atlanta aka Cisco) that have no concept of user interface or quality control, but have enough influence to dominate the OEM cable box market.
In the end, though, content availability is all about the providers/owners feeling comfortable with the (revenue from the) distribution model. Can they make a profit with free online content with ads? Do they get enough share from an iTunes transaction? Will they get enough of a cut from a monthly fee in a subscription service? It's going to be an interesting battle...
I think people are just worried that useful/critical core OS features will only be available to App Store apps. If that's not the case, then most of the concerns are not really warranted...
You're asking then not merely to allow competition with their app store, but essentially say to potential competitors: "Hey look, we did most of the work for you. All the API's are there and you can hook into them.
So customers are required to pay $130 each time they release an OS update but they shouldn't expect OS APIs to be available for the apps they want to use? I'm not talking hosting server disk space or bandwidth, just accessing APIs. Somehow this "hard work" is different from all of the other APIs?
Anyway, I agree with many of your points, as yes, they aren't restricting other app management systems, they are just creating what will be the 800 lb gorilla de facto one. IMO it's a lot more more "monopolistic" (especially givens Apple's current success) than Microsoft's "browser integration" issue, for which they were fined heavily and required to include every browser under the sun in their OS install.
Should Steam, Direct2Drive, etc (and IE or other browsers for that matter!) now be required options in OSX? Because as you said, it's just not good business to let someone compete with you if you don't have to - that's why governments stepped in with the MS situation...