They're going to release a new program every week?!?! That's hella rapid application development. If they can actually keep up with that pace of development, they'll kick some serious ass. Of course, they'll need to maintain and update all their old code as well. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that they'll be able to maintain this exponential demand for developer time very long.
Flying cars would still be quite a bit faster, as you can travel in a straight line, instead of following windy roads. I believe aerodynamic issues will also limit the speed of ground-based transportation. Even the fastest street cars today only go up to about 200 mph. The slowest planes typically travel at about 100 mph.
According to the materials people at Intel, they can keep up this level of progress for at least the next 10 years. This means (going by transistor count), it will be possible to make a 2000 core P6. The catch? It will draw 200KW
I think you either misunderstood, he was exaggerating, or the materials people at Intel are completely full of shit. There's no way they've got materials or technology that can dissipate 200KW of heat off of a computer chip, no matter how much money they throw at the problem.
Yes, but you'll notice that we already have 23rd-century communicators, tri-corders, data storage*, and display technology. As a sibling post points out, that's because these are easily commoditizable and there's lots of money to be made.
I think this bolsters your theory that it's the focus that matters most. And focus is largely a matter of markets and profitability.
* There was an episode in ST:TOS where they were plugging in 2.5-inch orange squares into a computer. I don't recall now what was on them. But when mini-discs came out in the early 1990s, I remarked that they were about the same size, and held roughly the same amount of data.
I think an oxymoron is entirely appropriate to describe this problem. The whole point of the technologies is to provide us with continuous access, and yet on the whole, they're providing us with the opposite -- disconnectedness from those around us.
Making money from (a particular) something is not a moral right. (Although feeding your family is, I suppose.) The moral right of an author is to be acknowledged as the author, not to make money from the work. Even copyright is not primarily intended to protect the monetization of a work; the potential profit (for a limited time) is intended to encourage more artistic and useful works.
It's akin to saying that it's not unethical to steal TVs from shop windows, because TVs should be free.
If I steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I copy your book, you still have your book. See the difference yet? If I have not deprived you of anything, where is the harm? You may claim that the harm is that you can't make money off the thing. But the Free software movement has shown that people can make money and still make the code free (as in free speech). In fact, they argue that there's more harm in keeping that code to yourself (actually, the harm is primarily in using the hidden code as leverage against the users) than your potential loss of revenue. You should try to understand RMS's point, so you can argue where the line should be drawn, because that's your actual core disagreement with him.
You should look into FreeBSD's systrace functionality. It looks a little easier to set up than a chroot jail, but is more fine-grained, and concerns more than just file access. As far as I know, Linux doesn't have anything like it though. (I wish it did!)
While the Motorola RAZR is relatively slim, to me the most impressive part is the flip-up portion. It's only about 5 mm thick, yet it contains 2 color LCD displays. Hmm -- I just realized that they appear to share a single backlight. Which makes a lot of sense, I suppose -- cramming 2 backlights into that space would be really hard.
Um, I don't think Microsoft sells a product named Sequel. I think you're thinking of "SQL Server". Most people like to pronounce the "SQL" as "sequel". And other non-Microsoft technologies are problematic to search for: C, C++, shell, Mac, IP, Excite, log files.
But you're right -- it does make it hard to search for many of the most popular Microsoft products. The sad thing is that Microsoft most likely chooses generic names on purpose. They want to take advantage of (embrace and extend) existing language. I'm glad their "Digital Nervous System" term never caught on. It's bad enough that I have to deal with 3 possible meanings of IP (Internet Protocol, Information Protection, Intellectual Property).
I think I may have figured out what the problem really is that the article was trying to get at. The problem is that the high end and early adopter markets have merged. And that's probably not a good thing for a lot of people who want high-end stuff, but not necessarily cutting edge. I'd say that this is mainly a result of the emphasis of features more than quality.
I think you've hit upon what I was just thinking. A trademarked term generally has to have a generic term associated with it. Thus you've got Xerox photocopiers, McDonald's hamburgers, Bud Light beer, Camel cigarettes, etc. I'm not sure if "character" would be sufficient -- it seems too vague in describing the idea.
1. Is there any evidence that people buying pirated copies of Microsoft software are receiving "hacked" versions containing malware or inferior code?
2. When it's so cheap to simply copy bits, where is the incentive for a seller to spend a lot of time and effort modifying code?
3. If there was malware on the disc, I would think most people would realize that it was because they bought a pirated copy, not because Microsoft put it there.
Excellent leg work! This tells us that in 2004, Google donated $225K to Mozilla. Mozilla also received $4.4 million from search companies for directing people to the search pages. It's not broken down by how much each search company paid, but I think it's safe to assume that it was mostly Google.
Also of note is that the Mozilla Foundation spent nearly all of the money it had at the beginning of the year. In other words, their 2004 budget was just about equal to their assets at the beginning of the year. Which is pretty much what you want from a non-profit.
Most likely, the best way to maximize profits is to stagger the releases. Just like movies released in the theater first, then on DVD. You'll always get some people who will buy both. If you release them both at the same time, you'll get less people buying both.
The big question is, which would maximize profits more? Selling the digital download first, or the CD first? I suspect it would depend on the audience for the given artist. For pop music with a young audience, I would not be at all surprised to find that kids would be more likely to buy the CD, and then the digital download a few weeks later.
Nobody is forcing investors to buy Google stock. Google is not violating any SEC or NASDAQ rules. You could make a (weak) argument that Google is hurting their stock price (and thus neglecting their fiduciary responsibility) by not disclosing more information. But there are 3 stronger counter-arguments: 1) it's not Google that's hurting the stock price -- it's the speculators; 2) Google is concentrating on long-term stock-holder value, and short-term fluctuations have no bearing on that; 3) long-term stock-holder value is based on the company's long-term performance, and little else.
"Look, sorry, are we talking about the little white furry things with the cheese fixation and women standing on tables screaming in early sixties sitcoms?"
Slartibartfast coughed politely.
"Earthman," he said, "it is sometimes hard to follow your mode of speech. Remember I have been asleep inside this planet of Magrathea for five million years and know little of these early sixties sitcoms of which you speak."
Slashdot Mirror
They're going to release a new program every week?!?! That's hella rapid application development. If they can actually keep up with that pace of development, they'll kick some serious ass. Of course, they'll need to maintain and update all their old code as well. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that they'll be able to maintain this exponential demand for developer time very long.
Flying cars would still be quite a bit faster, as you can travel in a straight line, instead of following windy roads. I believe aerodynamic issues will also limit the speed of ground-based transportation. Even the fastest street cars today only go up to about 200 mph. The slowest planes typically travel at about 100 mph.
According to the materials people at Intel, they can keep up this level of progress for at least the next 10 years. This means (going by transistor count), it will be possible to make a 2000 core P6. The catch? It will draw 200KW
I think you either misunderstood, he was exaggerating, or the materials people at Intel are completely full of shit. There's no way they've got materials or technology that can dissipate 200KW of heat off of a computer chip, no matter how much money they throw at the problem.
Yes, but you'll notice that we already have 23rd-century communicators, tri-corders, data storage*, and display technology. As a sibling post points out, that's because these are easily commoditizable and there's lots of money to be made.
I think this bolsters your theory that it's the focus that matters most. And focus is largely a matter of markets and profitability.
* There was an episode in ST:TOS where they were plugging in 2.5-inch orange squares into a computer. I don't recall now what was on them. But when mini-discs came out in the early 1990s, I remarked that they were about the same size, and held roughly the same amount of data.
No, it's more likely the end of my business relationship with AT&T/SBC.
One point that she makes (I RTFA in Newsweek last night) is that it would be OK in moderation, but the pendulum has swung way too far.
I think an oxymoron is entirely appropriate to describe this problem. The whole point of the technologies is to provide us with continuous access, and yet on the whole, they're providing us with the opposite -- disconnectedness from those around us.
moral rights of an author
Making money from (a particular) something is not a moral right. (Although feeding your family is, I suppose.) The moral right of an author is to be acknowledged as the author, not to make money from the work. Even copyright is not primarily intended to protect the monetization of a work; the potential profit (for a limited time) is intended to encourage more artistic and useful works.
It's akin to saying that it's not unethical to steal TVs from shop windows, because TVs should be free.
If I steal your TV, you no longer have a TV. If I copy your book, you still have your book. See the difference yet? If I have not deprived you of anything, where is the harm? You may claim that the harm is that you can't make money off the thing. But the Free software movement has shown that people can make money and still make the code free (as in free speech). In fact, they argue that there's more harm in keeping that code to yourself (actually, the harm is primarily in using the hidden code as leverage against the users) than your potential loss of revenue. You should try to understand RMS's point, so you can argue where the line should be drawn, because that's your actual core disagreement with him.
You should look into FreeBSD's systrace functionality. It looks a little easier to set up than a chroot jail, but is more fine-grained, and concerns more than just file access. As far as I know, Linux doesn't have anything like it though. (I wish it did!)
It's not theft, if owner still has it after it's been "stolen".
While the Motorola RAZR is relatively slim, to me the most impressive part is the flip-up portion. It's only about 5 mm thick, yet it contains 2 color LCD displays. Hmm -- I just realized that they appear to share a single backlight. Which makes a lot of sense, I suppose -- cramming 2 backlights into that space would be really hard.
There was actually a C++ development an UI package that a columnist in Dr. Dobb's wrote, called D-Flat.
That was obviously an attempt at a buffer overflow exploit, not a spelling mistake.
Um, I don't think Microsoft sells a product named Sequel. I think you're thinking of "SQL Server". Most people like to pronounce the "SQL" as "sequel". And other non-Microsoft technologies are problematic to search for: C, C++, shell, Mac, IP, Excite, log files.
But you're right -- it does make it hard to search for many of the most popular Microsoft products. The sad thing is that Microsoft most likely chooses generic names on purpose. They want to take advantage of (embrace and extend) existing language. I'm glad their "Digital Nervous System" term never caught on. It's bad enough that I have to deal with 3 possible meanings of IP (Internet Protocol, Information Protection, Intellectual Property).
I think I may have figured out what the problem really is that the article was trying to get at. The problem is that the high end and early adopter markets have merged. And that's probably not a good thing for a lot of people who want high-end stuff, but not necessarily cutting edge. I'd say that this is mainly a result of the emphasis of features more than quality.
Test pilots have more accidents than airline pilots!
I think you've hit upon what I was just thinking. A trademarked term generally has to have a generic term associated with it. Thus you've got Xerox photocopiers, McDonald's hamburgers, Bud Light beer, Camel cigarettes, etc. I'm not sure if "character" would be sufficient -- it seems too vague in describing the idea.
That seems like a silly argument.
1. Is there any evidence that people buying pirated copies of Microsoft software are receiving "hacked" versions containing malware or inferior code?
2. When it's so cheap to simply copy bits, where is the incentive for a seller to spend a lot of time and effort modifying code?
3. If there was malware on the disc, I would think most people would realize that it was because they bought a pirated copy, not because Microsoft put it there.
Excellent leg work! This tells us that in 2004, Google donated $225K to Mozilla. Mozilla also received $4.4 million from search companies for directing people to the search pages. It's not broken down by how much each search company paid, but I think it's safe to assume that it was mostly Google.
Also of note is that the Mozilla Foundation spent nearly all of the money it had at the beginning of the year. In other words, their 2004 budget was just about equal to their assets at the beginning of the year. Which is pretty much what you want from a non-profit.
Most likely, the best way to maximize profits is to stagger the releases. Just like movies released in the theater first, then on DVD. You'll always get some people who will buy both. If you release them both at the same time, you'll get less people buying both.
The big question is, which would maximize profits more? Selling the digital download first, or the CD first? I suspect it would depend on the audience for the given artist. For pop music with a young audience, I would not be at all surprised to find that kids would be more likely to buy the CD, and then the digital download a few weeks later.
You've got to be smoking some serious crack to think that Callaway Nuclear Generating Station is anywhere near Springfield, MO. Goggle Maps tells us that it's a 196 mile drive, taking nearly 4 hours.
I wish I had mod points to give you on that!
Nobody is forcing investors to buy Google stock. Google is not violating any SEC or NASDAQ rules. You could make a (weak) argument that Google is hurting their stock price (and thus neglecting their fiduciary responsibility) by not disclosing more information. But there are 3 stronger counter-arguments: 1) it's not Google that's hurting the stock price -- it's the speculators; 2) Google is concentrating on long-term stock-holder value, and short-term fluctuations have no bearing on that; 3) long-term stock-holder value is based on the company's long-term performance, and little else.
We were talking about using existing GPLed code in your own code. You can NOT relicense THAT code in any other manner than the owner allows.
"Look, sorry, are we talking about the little white furry things with the cheese fixation and women standing on tables screaming in early sixties sitcoms?"
Slartibartfast coughed politely.
"Earthman," he said, "it is sometimes hard to follow your mode of speech. Remember I have been asleep inside this planet of Magrathea for five million years and know little of these early sixties sitcoms of which you speak."
-- Douglas Adams
Sorry, you are correct. I mis-spoke. I know better, but I didn't think that was pertinent to this thread.