Back in 1787 when Jefferson and Madison were writing the Bill of Rights, they wrote letters back and forth discussing "monopolies" -- copyright and patents. The gist of it is that Jefferson was against monopolies entirely, and wanted to write protection from them into the Bill of Rights, but Madison convinced him to accept it with the argument that monopoly is protection of the few from the many, and that the many were in power. For a better explanation, see my other post. Anyway, since then the times have changed, and now the situation is reversed -- the few (i.e., media cartels) are in power, so they no longer need or deserve protection.
The media cartels are not the artists who are getting protected by copyright law. If you don't like media cartels, then fine. I would agree with you on that one. But they are very different to the individual artists who need that copyright protection if for no other reason than to be protected from the media cartels.
Copyright law protects the little guy as much as it frames the big guy. Just because you don't like the big guys, that doesn't mean that the little guys don't need protection any more.
Are you assuming I'm a programmer? I'm actually a student, so that doesn't really apply.:D
No. I'm wondering why you think that artists don't deserve compensation for their work and you deserve any for yours. I made no assumption about your mode of employment - except that I did assume you were in the workforce, as opposed to being a student.
Also, even if it weren't possible to make a living selling your software, you could still do stuff like provide a service (e.g. Red Hat), teach, or sell a tangible widget instead of just information.
Why do you think that people deserve compensation for providing a service, teaching or selling a tangible widget? What makes you think that this is any different to creating music, writing books or articles, or writing software? What gives it greater worthiness in your view that people who are in the service industry, teachers or who are in manufacturing deserve money for their time and effort, but those who create artistic works or software do not?
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that AT THE TIME, copyright was appropriate. However, between the abuses of the media cartels, the rise of free distribution via the Internet, and things like Creative Commons, the circumstances that once justified copyright no longer apply.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
In fact, the circumstances which lead to copyright exist today in much more force than ever before - because people are indulging in mass copying of others' works. We're not just talking one or two copies being run off on a printing press any more - we're talking about hundreds of thousands of digital copies being spread around the internet in a blink of an eye.
You know, waaay back in 1787 Thomas Jefferson was against copyright (and "intellectual property" in general) entirely. He only reluctantly agreed to put copyright privilages in after Madison convinced him that there was little possibility for abuse, beacuse there was no "powerful few" back then:
"Obviously, [...] suggests that Jefferson opposed copyright protection
in the new Constitution, but the Founding Fathers put it in there anyway. This is not quite in agreement with the statements in the above cited letters. Jefferson finally ended up RECOMMENDING that such protection be included in a Bill of Rights.
Therefore it appears that the statement in the article suggesting that Jefferson opposed the inclusion of copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution is not entirely correct. Jefferson at first was doubtful, but then recommended that limited protections be included."
I think there's a proportion of downloaders who would pay, but just not to the RIAA. I'd certainly want to pay the artist directly.
Then why not boycott the RIAA instead of stealing the music? That way, the RIAA gets the message, and you're not depriving the artist of any income - no matter how small. You're also more likely to buy the artist's music directly from them when that becomes possible.
Oh, that's right...because it's not really about not giving money to the RIAA at all. It's about getting music you want for free - the whole "giving money directly to the artist" thing is a smokescreen.
Nice attempt at after the fact rationalisation though. Does it make you sleep better at night to know that you're sticking it to the RIAA by copying music? Even if it dilutes your point beyond recognition, and gives the people who want laws like the DMCA to be passed more ammunition to use to do so?
When we end up with draconian copyright laws, there will only be one type of person responsible for that - and that's people like you, who steal music instead of boycotting it to "make a point".
Why not just come out and admit why you really are copying it? It's not civil disobedience no matter how you try to dress it up.
(BTW: There are parts of the DMCA which are worth having - check out the library provisions).
I don't get paid due to a government imposed monopoly. Anyone else can apply for a job doing the same type of work as I do(if they have the correct skillset). If, due to government regulation, I was the only person in the country allowed to write software, you might have a point. But my employment is controlled by market economics.
That's beside the point. The question I asked was what you got paid. The reason? Because any answer you reply with will be too much, because it's my job to decide that what you get paid is unreasonable.
If you are uncomfortable with that state of affairs, when why do you believe that you should be able to pass judgement on others as to what a reasonable payment is or not?
Well, as most who listen to classical music will say, Mozart is one of the greatest musical minds in history. His brilliance was incredible, and his music listen to by many. How much money did this make him? How about you go look at his grave. Oops! Can't find it? Oh yeah, he was buried in a pauper's grave. Broke. How's that for a nice end for the greatest musical mind in history?
Sad end. But he wasn't broke in life. Like most people who seem to think that great classical musicians were never paid for their work, you should do some research and read some history.
Mozart was regularly commissioned to do work. He was regularly patronized by several church leaders. He was also a spectularly awful business man, according to some accounts, and that is what lead him to die as a pauper - not him not being paid.
You might say that I'm a patron, in fact. I am providing housing and for a young artist. I get nothing out of it. No rent, no nothing. Why? Because he's a good dude and I want to help him make music. There's nothing wrong with this, now is it?
Nope, nothing at all. Except that it doesn't scale.
Do you pay taxes? In The US, there's the National Endowment for the Arts, in other countries there's often an even larger organization called the Ministry of Culture or some variation thereof. The point is every taxpayer *is* a patron of the arts.
Of course, the NEA has become rather infamous for funding the sort of thing that hardly anybody enjoys (tedious "advant-garde" performance art, grotesque paintings using one or more bodily fluids for shock value), but there's no intrinsic reason why the money, couldn't say, fund music of popular nature instead.
I didn't mention the major disadvantage of the patronage system because it would have taken away the punchiness of my original point... but here goes.
The big problem here is that you end up with a handful of artists - maybe 20 - who end up with endowments. The rest? Screw 'em and let 'em starve.
That's why the Gutenberg press, and the recording industry are huge. They give everyone the chance to make a living at producing works of art - not just a lucky exalted few who manage to fall under the eye of those with the money and the power to make things happen.
Sure, there are problems with the existing system - but those problems are separate and distinct from the idea of copyright and what it gives society as a whole.
Those of us who chose to be different and to use and support the better alternatives suffer to a degree because of the herd's attitude. However, our patience and diligence are already are being rewarded in many ways. Our computers are powerful tools. Yours are pathetic, shiny, patronising, broken toys.
Funny... my computer is a powerful tool, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, other than trying to perhaps trying to feel superior.
Good luck with that, by the way. Typically, people like you get so far, and then kablooie... the hammer drops, and you get a good dose of reality shock. I hope you're able to pick up the pieces of your fragile ego when that happens.
So, it's illegal because it's illegal. Great argument!
Another strawman attack. We were talking about the horse & buggy vs. car analogy. The reason why it doesn't fly is because neither the horse & buggy or the car were illegal - whereas the "new paradigm" in this case is.
And yes, I do have a good reason why piracy should be (and IS) illegal - it's twofold:
1. What the artists have created has value to the people copying it - otherwise they wouldn't copy it. We already know it has value to the artists - otherwise they wouldn't try to sell it. However, for some reason, the people copying it believe that they should get it for free instead of paying the artists what they're asking for it.
This is wrong - you don't get to set the price if you're the buyer. You certainly don't get to say "hey, I disagree - I'm going to have that anyway!".
2. Intellectual Property is like any other kind of goods in that it takes time and energy to create. However, unlike other property, with intellectual property we have the opportunity to obtain it at a much reduced cost compared to the cost of creating it in the first place - that is, the volume model allows the price to drop, because less people are needed to compensate the artist for their work.
There are naturally some edge cases - those artists who get mega rich, and those who see nothing from this system - but in the main, it works well for all concerned.
Unless you'd like to claim that the artists do not deserve compensation for their work - in which case I'd like to hear a good argument why they don't deserve compensation for their work and you deserve compensation for yours...... and I get the feeling that you won't be able to provide a solid reason for that last part.
Governments should therefore be stepping in to ensure most of the money goes to the creators, and that copyright monopoly only lasts until the creator receives the cost of production plus reasonable profit.
Just wondering... what do you earn?
Whatever figure you reply with, I'm willing to bet that it's not "reasonable" profit. I'm, in fact, sure that you're overpaid. The government should step in and make sure that you're paid less - after all, I certainly don't consider what you get paid to be reasonable.
The "they're making more money than I want them to" argument is really really stupidly lame.
So you are suggesting that we should make the cars illegal to protect the important and ancient trades of cart making and horse farming?
No, because that would be absolutely stupid. But hey, nice attempt at a strawman argument.
Illegally copying music is - guess what? - illegal. Whining about horse and buggies and claiming that it's a "new paradigm" doesn't make it any less so.
in my town, the old horse & cart transports have died out too. Is this because of high-speed road access and a youth culture that uses some of the most sophisticated automobiles available?
Or is it just because there is a better way of doing things?
The difference being that driving a car instead of using a horse and buggy isn't illegal, whereas illegally copying music is.
Mozart never sold a single record in his lifetime, nor did Bach, Beethoven, Verdi, etc. etc.
If you want to go back to the patronage model, please, feel free to stump up the money to do so yourself.
You might want to learn how classical musicians were paid. Although it sounds like you might be surprised to find out that yes, indeed, they were paid.
For those objecting to the nazis being brought in to this discussion lets not forget that they and their kind (what is the difference between "gein juden" and "whites only") were in power and doing their petty hatred and corrupting long before the famous "final solution" was put into effect. All those years people cried out in protest and people like the above poster silenced them by saying they shouldn't make a fuss and let people get on with their jobs and that it all would work out okay.
The problem isn't that they're being brought into the discussion - it's that you're comparing genocidal maniacs with people who work for a software company. This normally indicates that you're either unable to formulate a rational argument and so are kneeling on the crutch of emotional ad hominem attacks, or that you're so mentally unstable and unbalanced that you actually think that the comparison is one that is equal.
Clue for you: It's not. Don't try to rationalize it. It's just plain not a valid comparison. Anyone who thinks that it is is probably trying to compensate for being a jackbooted thug themselves.
Firefox is given away for free. Its owner, the Mozilla Foundation, is a not for profit organisation. Most of the people who work on mozilla do so in their spare time, and give the results of their labours away for free. That isn't capitalism, not by a long stretch.
It's not meant to be capitalism. By design, it's meant to eliminate capitalism from software development. Read the GNU manifesto where RMS compares software developers to store checkout clerks if you want more info on this and exactly how RMS looks at software engineering as a profession.
This is the same tech in all modern batteries. Increase surface area and you get more reaction. No different to heatsinks, it's been known for years.
Two years ago, I came up with this exact idea of increasing battery energy density. Everyone I talked to told me that it was old hat, and that it was already being done.
*shrug*
Yet another bright idea down the toilet. One of these days I'll have one that hasn't been done before:)
Yes, there's libraries that do this, but they all have the same socket()...gethostbyname()...connect() stuff under the hood. This should be handled at the system call level.
Try writing a library of your own that wraps it all up in a nice pretty bow, and you'll quickly see why it looks like that. There are some abstractions which you just can't abstract away any further without losing functionality - and the sockets library is one of them. You can either have a general networking library, or a nice sanitized easy-to-use-by-kindergarten-kids library - you can't put both in the same package.
Microsoft is waiting for the competition to come up with all the new ideas and take the lead. Microsoft will then implement these ideas in IE with their own take on the idea.
Microsoft will then hype up these new developments as if they were their ideas and go on about how their right to innovate is important
You mean the way that Firefox did exactly that with the security bar in the version of IE released in XP SP2?
Really? Technically inclined individuals tend to look at things with a logical, rational approach. Most non-technically inclined individuals tend not to understand the technically inclined.
Therefore, it's more likely that technically inclined individuals have a rational hatred of Microsoft, but most people are lacking sufficient clue to understand why.
Vi vs. Emacs.
This is not a technical debate.
It's a religious war.
Technically inclined individuals - regardless of intelligence - are as likely to get into stupid petty religious wars as any other individual. So no, they are not likely to have a rational hatred of Microsoft. No matter how much your bias makes you want to think that they should.
Genome sequencing of different isolates of HIV-1 and HIV-2 shows that each is related to retroviruses that occur in primates in Africa. These are designated simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIV) although they do not cause immune deficiency (or any disease) in their natural host. However, on those occasions when a SIV accidentally infects a primate of a different species, it does cause disease in the new host. The human epidemic is one example. HIV-1 is most closely related to a SIV found in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) HIV-2 is most closely related to a SIV that occurs in the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys). Genome analysis also permits the construction of phylogenetic trees which reveal different clades of HIV just as such analysis reveals evolutionary relationship between species.
HIV mutates faster than virtually any other virus. Indeed, early vaccine attempts were foiled by the ability of the virus to "reactivate" itself, after being disabled. Because there's very little in the virus that is guaranteed to be common to ALL instances of said virus, it is hard to see how immunity could exist, even in theory.
Other primates are already immune to HIV - Chimps, it seems, caught it a long time ago. It decimated their population - but some had the immunity. All chimps today are immune to it.
I think you mean the speed of electrons. Electrons can't travel the speed of light (in a vacuum)
No, he means the speed of light. Electron flow speed has nothing to do with how fast electronic circuits can perform operations; it's the EM wave that is important, not the actual electronics themselves.
Think about it... you average processor speed is so fast that it's many bajillion times faster than the electrons can actually move. The clock signal is NOT transmitted as electrons - it simply can't be.
Are you out of your mind? Someone who can spend 16 hours in row doing one thing to the exclusion to basic human functions has anything BUT attention deficit disorder. Tell me how long attention span would regular person has to have if someone with ADD can spend 16h/day 7days/week doing one thing for months at a time?
Damn people who throw around abreviations they don't understand and damn moderators who dare to label it interesting
Look,...
ADD does not mean that you have the attention span of a goldfish.
It means two things:
1. You are easily distracted by environmental stimuli. (making it difficult to focus on boring tasks)
2. You can go into "hyperfocus" mode, whereby you can focus massively intently to the exclusion of everything else on one thing and one thing only - which most people can't do. Most programmers will recognize this "flow" mode. It's a hallmark of ADD.
Attention Deficit Disorder is a very badly named term.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in 1787 when Jefferson and Madison were writing the Bill of Rights, they wrote letters back and forth discussing "monopolies" -- copyright and patents. The gist of it is that Jefferson was against monopolies entirely, and wanted to write protection from them into the Bill of Rights, but Madison convinced him to accept it with the argument that monopoly is protection of the few from the many, and that the many were in power. For a better explanation, see my other post. Anyway, since then the times have changed, and now the situation is reversed -- the few (i.e., media cartels) are in power, so they no longer need or deserve protection.
:D
The media cartels are not the artists who are getting protected by copyright law. If you don't like media cartels, then fine. I would agree with you on that one. But they are very different to the individual artists who need that copyright protection if for no other reason than to be protected from the media cartels.
Copyright law protects the little guy as much as it frames the big guy. Just because you don't like the big guys, that doesn't mean that the little guys don't need protection any more.
Are you assuming I'm a programmer? I'm actually a student, so that doesn't really apply.
No. I'm wondering why you think that artists don't deserve compensation for their work and you deserve any for yours. I made no assumption about your mode of employment - except that I did assume you were in the workforce, as opposed to being a student.
Also, even if it weren't possible to make a living selling your software, you could still do stuff like provide a service (e.g. Red Hat), teach, or sell a tangible widget instead of just information.
Why do you think that people deserve compensation for providing a service, teaching or selling a tangible widget? What makes you think that this is any different to creating music, writing books or articles, or writing software? What gives it greater worthiness in your view that people who are in the service industry, teachers or who are in manufacturing deserve money for their time and effort, but those who create artistic works or software do not?
I'd love to hear your reasoning on this.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that AT THE TIME, copyright was appropriate. However, between the abuses of the media cartels, the rise of free distribution via the Internet, and things like Creative Commons, the circumstances that once justified copyright no longer apply.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
In fact, the circumstances which lead to copyright exist today in much more force than ever before - because people are indulging in mass copying of others' works. We're not just talking one or two copies being run off on a printing press any more - we're talking about hundreds of thousands of digital copies being spread around the internet in a blink of an eye.
Other people disagree with you.
I think there's a proportion of downloaders who would pay, but just not to the RIAA. I'd certainly want to pay the artist directly.
Then why not boycott the RIAA instead of stealing the music? That way, the RIAA gets the message, and you're not depriving the artist of any income - no matter how small. You're also more likely to buy the artist's music directly from them when that becomes possible.
Oh, that's right...because it's not really about not giving money to the RIAA at all. It's about getting music you want for free - the whole "giving money directly to the artist" thing is a smokescreen.
Nice attempt at after the fact rationalisation though. Does it make you sleep better at night to know that you're sticking it to the RIAA by copying music? Even if it dilutes your point beyond recognition, and gives the people who want laws like the DMCA to be passed more ammunition to use to do so?
When we end up with draconian copyright laws, there will only be one type of person responsible for that - and that's people like you, who steal music instead of boycotting it to "make a point".
Why not just come out and admit why you really are copying it? It's not civil disobedience no matter how you try to dress it up.
(BTW: There are parts of the DMCA which are worth having - check out the library provisions).
I don't get paid due to a government imposed monopoly. Anyone else can apply for a job doing the same type of work as I do(if they have the correct skillset). If, due to government regulation, I was the only person in the country allowed to write software, you might have a point. But my employment is controlled by market economics.
That's beside the point. The question I asked was what you got paid. The reason? Because any answer you reply with will be too much, because it's my job to decide that what you get paid is unreasonable.
If you are uncomfortable with that state of affairs, when why do you believe that you should be able to pass judgement on others as to what a reasonable payment is or not?
Well, as most who listen to classical music will say, Mozart is one of the greatest musical minds in history. His brilliance was incredible, and his music listen to by many. How much money did this make him? How about you go look at his grave. Oops! Can't find it? Oh yeah, he was buried in a pauper's grave. Broke. How's that for a nice end for the greatest musical mind in history?
Sad end. But he wasn't broke in life. Like most people who seem to think that great classical musicians were never paid for their work, you should do some research and read some history.
Mozart was regularly commissioned to do work. He was regularly patronized by several church leaders. He was also a spectularly awful business man, according to some accounts, and that is what lead him to die as a pauper - not him not being paid.
You might say that I'm a patron, in fact. I am providing housing and for a young artist. I get nothing out of it. No rent, no nothing. Why? Because he's a good dude and I want to help him make music. There's nothing wrong with this, now is it?
Nope, nothing at all. Except that it doesn't scale.
Do you pay taxes? In The US, there's the National Endowment for the Arts, in other countries there's often an even larger organization called the Ministry of Culture or some variation thereof. The point is every taxpayer *is* a patron of the arts.
Of course, the NEA has become rather infamous for funding the sort of thing that hardly anybody enjoys (tedious "advant-garde" performance art, grotesque paintings using one or more bodily fluids for shock value), but there's no intrinsic reason why the money, couldn't say, fund music of popular nature instead.
I didn't mention the major disadvantage of the patronage system because it would have taken away the punchiness of my original point... but here goes.
The big problem here is that you end up with a handful of artists - maybe 20 - who end up with endowments. The rest? Screw 'em and let 'em starve.
That's why the Gutenberg press, and the recording industry are huge. They give everyone the chance to make a living at producing works of art - not just a lucky exalted few who manage to fall under the eye of those with the money and the power to make things happen.
Sure, there are problems with the existing system - but those problems are separate and distinct from the idea of copyright and what it gives society as a whole.
Those of us who chose to be different and to use and support the better alternatives suffer to a degree because of the herd's attitude. However, our patience and diligence are already are being rewarded in many ways. Our computers are powerful tools. Yours are pathetic, shiny, patronising, broken toys.
Funny... my computer is a powerful tool, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, other than trying to perhaps trying to feel superior.
Good luck with that, by the way. Typically, people like you get so far, and then kablooie... the hammer drops, and you get a good dose of reality shock. I hope you're able to pick up the pieces of your fragile ego when that happens.
So, it's illegal because it's illegal. Great argument!
... and I get the feeling that you won't be able to provide a solid reason for that last part.
Another strawman attack. We were talking about the horse & buggy vs. car analogy. The reason why it doesn't fly is because neither the horse & buggy or the car were illegal - whereas the "new paradigm" in this case is.
And yes, I do have a good reason why piracy should be (and IS) illegal - it's twofold:
1. What the artists have created has value to the people copying it - otherwise they wouldn't copy it. We already know it has value to the artists - otherwise they wouldn't try to sell it. However, for some reason, the people copying it believe that they should get it for free instead of paying the artists what they're asking for it.
This is wrong - you don't get to set the price if you're the buyer. You certainly don't get to say "hey, I disagree - I'm going to have that anyway!".
2. Intellectual Property is like any other kind of goods in that it takes time and energy to create. However, unlike other property, with intellectual property we have the opportunity to obtain it at a much reduced cost compared to the cost of creating it in the first place - that is, the volume model allows the price to drop, because less people are needed to compensate the artist for their work.
There are naturally some edge cases - those artists who get mega rich, and those who see nothing from this system - but in the main, it works well for all concerned.
Unless you'd like to claim that the artists do not deserve compensation for their work - in which case I'd like to hear a good argument why they don't deserve compensation for their work and you deserve compensation for yours...
Governments should therefore be stepping in to ensure most of the money goes to the creators, and that copyright monopoly only lasts until the creator receives the cost of production plus reasonable profit.
Just wondering... what do you earn?
Whatever figure you reply with, I'm willing to bet that it's not "reasonable" profit. I'm, in fact, sure that you're overpaid. The government should step in and make sure that you're paid less - after all, I certainly don't consider what you get paid to be reasonable.
The "they're making more money than I want them to" argument is really really stupidly lame.
So you are suggesting that we should make the cars illegal to protect the important and ancient trades of cart making and horse farming?
No, because that would be absolutely stupid. But hey, nice attempt at a strawman argument.
Illegally copying music is - guess what? - illegal. Whining about horse and buggies and claiming that it's a "new paradigm" doesn't make it any less so.
It certainly doesn't justify ripping off artists.
in my town, the old horse & cart transports have died out too. Is this because of high-speed road access and a youth culture that uses some of the most sophisticated automobiles available?
Or is it just because there is a better way of doing things?
The difference being that driving a car instead of using a horse and buggy isn't illegal, whereas illegally copying music is.
Mozart never sold a single record in his lifetime, nor did Bach, Beethoven, Verdi, etc. etc.
If you want to go back to the patronage model, please, feel free to stump up the money to do so yourself.
You might want to learn how classical musicians were paid. Although it sounds like you might be surprised to find out that yes, indeed, they were paid.
For those objecting to the nazis being brought in to this discussion lets not forget that they and their kind (what is the difference between "gein juden" and "whites only") were in power and doing their petty hatred and corrupting long before the famous "final solution" was put into effect. All those years people cried out in protest and people like the above poster silenced them by saying they shouldn't make a fuss and let people get on with their jobs and that it all would work out okay.
The problem isn't that they're being brought into the discussion - it's that you're comparing genocidal maniacs with people who work for a software company. This normally indicates that you're either unable to formulate a rational argument and so are kneeling on the crutch of emotional ad hominem attacks, or that you're so mentally unstable and unbalanced that you actually think that the comparison is one that is equal.
Clue for you: It's not. Don't try to rationalize it. It's just plain not a valid comparison. Anyone who thinks that it is is probably trying to compensate for being a jackbooted thug themselves.
Firefox is given away for free. Its owner, the Mozilla Foundation, is a not for profit organisation. Most of the people who work on mozilla do so in their spare time, and give the results of their labours away for free. That isn't capitalism, not by a long stretch.
It's not meant to be capitalism. By design, it's meant to eliminate capitalism from software development. Read the GNU manifesto where RMS compares software developers to store checkout clerks if you want more info on this and exactly how RMS looks at software engineering as a profession.
This is the same tech in all modern batteries. Increase surface area and you get more reaction. No different to heatsinks, it's been known for years.
:)
Two years ago, I came up with this exact idea of increasing battery energy density. Everyone I talked to told me that it was old hat, and that it was already being done.
*shrug*
Yet another bright idea down the toilet. One of these days I'll have one that hasn't been done before
Yes, there's libraries that do this, but they all have the same socket()...gethostbyname()...connect() stuff under the hood. This should be handled at the system call level.
Try writing a library of your own that wraps it all up in a nice pretty bow, and you'll quickly see why it looks like that. There are some abstractions which you just can't abstract away any further without losing functionality - and the sockets library is one of them. You can either have a general networking library, or a nice sanitized easy-to-use-by-kindergarten-kids library - you can't put both in the same package.
Microsoft is waiting for the competition to come up with all the new ideas and take the lead. Microsoft will then implement these ideas in IE with their own take on the idea.
Microsoft will then hype up these new developments as if they were their ideas and go on about how their right to innovate is important
You mean the way that Firefox did exactly that with the security bar in the version of IE released in XP SP2?
Please. Less hubris, more work. Thanks.
Really? Technically inclined individuals tend to look at things with a logical, rational approach. Most non-technically inclined individuals tend not to understand the technically inclined.
Therefore, it's more likely that technically inclined individuals have a rational hatred of Microsoft, but most people are lacking sufficient clue to understand why.
Vi vs. Emacs.
This is not a technical debate.
It's a religious war.
Technically inclined individuals - regardless of intelligence - are as likely to get into stupid petty religious wars as any other individual. So no, they are not likely to have a rational hatred of Microsoft. No matter how much your bias makes you want to think that they should.
Read this and learn:
Origin of HIV
Genome sequencing of different isolates of HIV-1 and HIV-2 shows that each is related to retroviruses that occur in primates in Africa. These are designated simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIV) although they do not cause immune deficiency (or any disease) in their natural host. However, on those occasions when a SIV accidentally infects a primate of a different species, it does cause disease in the new host. The human epidemic is one example.
HIV-1 is most closely related to a SIV found in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes)
HIV-2 is most closely related to a SIV that occurs in the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys).
Genome analysis also permits the construction of phylogenetic trees which reveal different clades of HIV just as such analysis reveals evolutionary relationship between species.
(emphasis mine)
HIV mutates faster than virtually any other virus. Indeed, early vaccine attempts were foiled by the ability of the virus to "reactivate" itself, after being disabled. Because there's very little in the virus that is guaranteed to be common to ALL instances of said virus, it is hard to see how immunity could exist, even in theory.
Other primates are already immune to HIV - Chimps, it seems, caught it a long time ago. It decimated their population - but some had the immunity. All chimps today are immune to it.
I think you mean the speed of electrons. Electrons can't travel the speed of light (in a vacuum)
No, he means the speed of light. Electron flow speed has nothing to do with how fast electronic circuits can perform operations; it's the EM wave that is important, not the actual electronics themselves.
Think about it... you average processor speed is so fast that it's many bajillion times faster than the electrons can actually move. The clock signal is NOT transmitted as electrons - it simply can't be.
Are you out of your mind? Someone who can spend 16 hours in row doing one thing to the exclusion to basic human functions has anything BUT attention deficit disorder.
Tell me how long attention span would regular person has to have if someone with ADD can spend 16h/day 7days/week doing one thing for months at a time?
Damn people who throw around abreviations they don't understand and damn moderators who dare to label it interesting
Look,...
ADD does not mean that you have the attention span of a goldfish.
It means two things:
1. You are easily distracted by environmental stimuli. (making it difficult to focus on boring tasks)
2. You can go into "hyperfocus" mode, whereby you can focus massively intently to the exclusion of everything else on one thing and one thing only - which most people can't do. Most programmers will recognize this "flow" mode. It's a hallmark of ADD.
Attention Deficit Disorder is a very badly named term.
Screw you. Go back to 1999, you astroturfing MS troll. Yes, some slashdotters don't forget.
Oooh... big man... if you can't fight the message, attack the messenger.
Take your ad hominem bullshit somewhere else, oh loserly one without the guts to post under your own name.