It most certainly doesn't mean that R&D is free, it is just discounted by some small percentage.
I didn't imply or mean to imply it was free. Although, in Canada at least, it does work out to much more than "some small percentage". Again, don't know about the US.
If your claims were true then everybody would spend all the tax money on R&D, and not pay taxes at all.
Er, perhaps you should re-read what I posted. I didn't say "100% benefit", just "benefits".
2) These numbers do not reflect the cost of MS Research. MSR is costing Microsoft a hefty sum every year, and they actually do provide many interesting things, especially for Windows internals.
Well... in Canada, you can claim research costs for tax benefits. I imagine (though don't know for sure) that something similar happens in the US to encourage research and development. So the costs of R&D are probably nicely offset by the tax benefits.
but if me buying an xbox to use as a PC costs Microsoft money
Uhm... not buying the XBox would probably hurt them more, don't you think?
I'll bet you're one of those kinds of people that sees "Save $100 off product Foo!" and will rush out and buy Foo, even though you don't need one, just to "save" the hundred bucks.
Once code is released under the GPL it is public domain
"Public domain" means (essentially) sans copyright. And yet:
;;; doxymacs.el --- ELisp package for making doxygen related stuff easier. ;; ;; Copyright (C) 2001 Ryan T. Sammartino ;; ;; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or ;; modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License ;;...
That's not public domain.
and guess what, if GPLed code was included in his code then he can't even do that [sell the code for profit].
Re:Don't scream
on
.NET for Apache
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Conecpts
(sic) behind open source and free software are permeating *every* company these days
Uhm... you clearly don't understand the concepts behind open source and free software at all if you think that giving away compilers falls even remotely in the same category.
under the ownership-stripping GPL
All code under the GPL is copyrighted (owned) by the person (or group, or organisation) that wrote the code. GPLed code has owners. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
# Develop your own standard (Direct3D maybe?) - Done
Except MS didn't develop the original DirectX API. It was developed by a company called RenderMorphics (and it was called something like Reality Lab 3D) and Microsoft just bought it.
The entire open source philosophy would appeal to china as it is more akin to the countries communist ideals
Why does this drivel continue to persist?
The "Open source" philosophy is a development model for software. The software is still "owned" (copyrighted), which is strike one against the "open source is communism" crap.
Looking at the ethical side ("Free Software", RMS and all that), communism (as traditionally implemented) is totally at odds with free software, which is all about empowering users and maximizing freedoms their freedoms. Communism is most definitely not about empowering citizens and maximizing their freedoms.
When you create software with bugs, you are creating something new.
That's why I said subtle form:)
Yes, you are creating something new. But it is of poor quality. Now, normally people do not put up with poor quality crap, and the producers go out of business, and the economy is better for it.
In the world of software, however, for whatever reason, people are willing to pay for this crap. So you create something new but broken, so you have to go to it again (and again and again...) until it works properly. This is ineffeciency. This is the drag.
The absolutely mind boggling thing is that people actually are willing and do pay to have things done over and over and over until it is "right" in the software world. Go figure.
What about breast enhancements? They create jobs, spurn some kind of innovation, I'm sure... but isn't that money that could go to more important things?
The point is not how "important" things are. The point is that the grocer is down 1 window and $100: the $100 is going to replace something he already had. That's duplicity of effort, and is therefore ineffecient, and therefore a drag on the overall economy.
But in any case, the U.S. economy is almost exclusively based on nonsense like this.
No argument there. It's even worse up here in Canada.
My statement that software bugs help the economy by $60 billion is ludicrous, but so is the statement that it costs the economy $60 billion.
Prima facie the statement that it costs the economy $60 billion is not ludicrious. You may argue about the numbers and whatnot, but bugs in software are definitely a subtle form of the broken window fallacy, and that very definitely is a drag on the economy. Like I said, money paid to programmers to fix bugs (read: do the same job again only "better" this time) is money better spent elsewhere; money paid to support personal when things go wrong is again, money more productively used elsewhere; time (read: money) wasted waiting for Windows to reboot yet again is also a cost in terms of productivity.
So, as my run-on sentence demonstrates, there is a cost: the only argument really is over the numbers.
Keep in mind that you can change the User-Agent string for Mozilla for various reasons, from security to working with broken sites. Pretending to be IE with Mozilla (or Konq or Galeon...) is not too uncommon.
You need to keep at least some history for each position... this affects rules like "stalemate after 3 repitious moves", castling, etc.
So, two nodes in the (10^120) search space may have the pieces in the same positions, but one might (for example) be one move away from stalement and the other not. (Also, one might be "black moves next" and the other might be "white moves next").
10^120 is an estimate of the realizable positions in a game of 40 moves. The number of possible games is estimated at 10^10^50. See here for other numbers and references.
Slashdot Mirror
If Bush were to come to a sudden stop, Blair's head would end up halfway up Bush's ass.
- the cost of manufacturing a unit.
- the cost of storing unsold units.
- market share/sales numbers that the MarketRoids can use (most important).
That which is seen, and that which is unseen, as the old economics saw goes.I'll bet you're one of those kinds of people that sees "Save $100 off product Foo!" and will rush out and buy Foo, even though you don't need one, just to "save" the hundred bucks.
This, apparently, is "innovation".
Go figure.
(They use some internal tool called SourceControl, or something like... the name escapes me)
The "Open source" philosophy is a development model for software. The software is still "owned" (copyrighted), which is strike one against the "open source is communism" crap.
Looking at the ethical side ("Free Software", RMS and all that), communism (as traditionally implemented) is totally at odds with free software, which is all about empowering users and maximizing freedoms their freedoms. Communism is most definitely not about empowering citizens and maximizing their freedoms.
Anyways, I wonder how much this conversation cost the Canadian economy? :)
Yes, you are creating something new. But it is of poor quality. Now, normally people do not put up with poor quality crap, and the producers go out of business, and the economy is better for it.
In the world of software, however, for whatever reason, people are willing to pay for this crap. So you create something new but broken, so you have to go to it again (and again and again...) until it works properly. This is ineffeciency. This is the drag.
The absolutely mind boggling thing is that people actually are willing and do pay to have things done over and over and over until it is "right" in the software world. Go figure.
So, as my run-on sentence demonstrates, there is a cost: the only argument really is over the numbers.
Money payed to programmers to fix bugs is money that isn't being used more productively somewhere else.
Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas
Some victory... instead of cutting off both arms, you get to keep one. :(
Mozilla is for nerds by nerds isn't it? :)
Keep in mind that you can change the User-Agent string for Mozilla for various reasons, from security to working with broken sites. Pretending to be IE with Mozilla (or Konq or Galeon...) is not too uncommon.
So, two nodes in the (10^120) search space may have the pieces in the same positions, but one might (for example) be one move away from stalement and the other not. (Also, one might be "black moves next" and the other might be "white moves next").
Make sense?
You should buy Why People Believe Weird Things and Virus of the Mind . Together they do a pretty good job of explaining why these strange beliefs persist.
10^120 is an estimate of the realizable positions in a game of 40 moves. The number of possible games is estimated at 10^10^50. See here for other numbers and references.