GPLv2 didn't "Allow" what Tivo did, it overlooked it. Once Tivo Inc. showed GNU just how evil a corporation can be, they had to spend time and money creating GPLv3, time and money that could have been spent actually doing something, instead had to be spent on lawyering.
It's a license - if they didn't include specific restrictions or terms than it is allowable.
The broken window fallacy assumes there is other jobs to be had and other work to be done. But if nobody in the town is employed and there is no work to be done then breaking a few windows will re-distribute the wealth from the shop owner to the unemployed--who hopefully will spend it in the shop. The alternate is for the shop-owner to have food he bought from the robots while the rest of the townsfolk go hungry, or to tax the shop keeper and feed the hungry unemployed masses for doing nothing.
That's the problem with the broken window fallacy - it's so compelling to some because it creates the illusion of creating wealth; when all it does it inefficiently transfer resources back and forth. Some portion of the dollar the shopkeeper spends on the window goes to taxes (sales and income); so the glazer only gets a fraction of it. When he buys a loaf of bread from the shopkeeper, taxes again come out. So in essence all you've done is take some percentage of the money away for no real gain.
Personally I think a few inefficient and useless services are preferable to charity.
If they are useless and inefficient all they do is make the situation worse. Eventually, you've broken enough windows so nobody has enough money to fix them and everyone starves while shopkeepers cut themselves on the glass shards.
He's a politician, he says what benefits him the most in that moment.
Snip
But from the left, his policies are reactive rather than proactive. Proactive would be getting out in front and stopping things that stifle innovation, like hostile business environments. Instead, he wants us (if he could expand, I'd wager) to outlaw things and restrict things and tariff things after the fact.
Should we want to be one step ahead, or one step behind?
As you pointed out, he is a politician. As with all politicians, they are for anything that protects jobs in their district / state and against any that eliminate them. It's not a left or right thing.
That's why you have budget hawk Republicans defending (and taking) farm subsidies,; earmarks from both sides designed to funnel cash to the people back home; Democrats and Republicans rushing to bail out Detroit; and crying when their state didn't get a shuttle.
Many are all for competition and free enterprise until Schumpeter comes around.
One argument heard for using these calculators is: 'They are limited enough to use in exams.' Sounds sensible, but it raises the question: 'Why are we teaching a generation of students to use crippled technology?'"
The real question is - "Why aren't we teaching students to better understand by graphing themselves, rather than relying on a machine?"
Granted, it's a lot easier to use a machine to graph than going through the drudgery of drawing the graphs; but slogging through graphing is part of developing not just an understanding of the process, but a feel for the answer so you can recognize one that isn't right and look for your data entry errors.
I graded papers or engineering classes and would get (wrong) answers to 8 decimal points. After a while i felt like writing in big bold letters "DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS ANSWER? BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU NEED TO FIND A DIFFERENT COURSE OF STUDY!!!!"
An important part of math is getting a feel for the answer and about what it should be so you can recognize the odd ones and look to see if you made a mistake. Technology, while grand, often acts as crutch and people blindly believe it.
Of course, there's nothing like a sales clerk getting a price of one cent after discount and proceeding to explain it must be right because the register said so. Or staring blankly at you after ringing up $10.00 for a $5.05 and you hand them a nickel and the insist they can take it and give you a $5 bill back "because the register thinks I put in a ten." Oh well....
What economy of scale? Your dim little mind is aware that Apple is currently one of the largest if not the largest PC maker in the world right? They have even beaten Dell once (haven't checked if Dell or HP has taken the lead again).
So what economy of scale? Someone going to sell Mac clones so successfully they outperform the largest makers by such a magnitude they can demand even sharper prices then Apple already can?
Actually, in your haste to comeback with a witty put down (I'll grant you managed to be half way there) you failed to consider the PC market is much vaster than Apple alone. That's where the economies of scale come to play. Adding the ability to run OSX as well as Windows merely increases the number of units to amortize the HW development costs and increases the buy quantity.
While Apple is certainly large enough to command good prices, there are plenty of PC OEMS who build enough machines to get good prices as well; and they can spread engineering and developmental costs over a number of units beyond just those for one manufacturer. If Apple were to license their OS they'd have to make it work on generic MBs or provide the tools needed to adapt them to OSX (much as independent hackers did to create the Hackintosh). Imagine if Dell could load OSX on a $500 Insperion - the $900 Macbook looks real expensive; especially since Apple really sells the OS experience. If you can get that on a cheaper clone, even with a lower build quality, it becomes harder to justify buying Apple hardware. Once OSX is running on may cheap laptops and desktops Apple will come under significant pricing pressure (and have fewer units to amortize their costs as clones cut into their sales); as well as support issues as hardware combinations proliferate. Neither is in Apple's best interest; especially since they have managed to maintain premium pricing by avoiding becoming a commodity like PCs.
well apple can $100-$500 from there system price and still have nice systems.
The mac pro should be $1500-$2000.
Why? They clearly sell well at the current prices, and if you assume all the price cuts came from margin Apple would need to increase sells dramatically (2x, 3x, 5x?) just to make the same profit at the reduced margin.
I have to agree with everyone that thinks the Woz wouldn't be a good fit for the current "Apple Way", since the man that was so devoted to the "User Experience" turned into the "Big Brother" that he railed against at the start, and now has his Users doing the "Lock Step" in chains!
The last time they licensed the operating system to non-Apple hardware it nearly killed the company.
It probably would be worse this time around since Apple now essentially uses industry standard hardware. Clone makers could take advantage of the economies of scale to introduce less expensive, and possibly higher perfuming, machines. They probably would not have quit the build quality of Apple but could get close enough that Apple would find it hard to maintain any significant price premium. OS sales probably wouldn't make up for the lost revenue to maintain development of OSX at its current level; so licensing it would make even less sense today.
In addition, Apple has been big on developing a closed, tightly integrated eco system - clones would threaten this as design proliferate and Apple can't be sure of what hardware the OS is using; making it harder to maintain that "power on and it works" design mantra.
Finally, they've been wildly successful to date and companies generally don't change when they are on a roll. That doesn't mean they'll still be around in 10 years but it is hard to argue against success.
Enterprise and DS9 both relied on serial plotlines. I didn't like the time-traveling alternate-future sparkly-people stuff in Enterprise, but I did like a lot of the one-off episodes. It was not shit.
My favorite was the Tholian Web episode "In a Mirror, Darkly;" they could have built a whole new series around that.
Also, as someone who started watching from TNG, would it be a good idea to watch TOS?
No, it was actually pretty good. As with any ST, it had really good episodes and really poor ones. I do think it had a lot of potential that was waited - the whole "we're the first explorers from Earth" could have been played up more rather than the time war; especially had they explored our first contact and relationship with other species prevalent in "later" series.
I've unreped conex containers many times. Container ships also happen to have cranes.
Yup - I forgot about the ones that pull into smaller non-container ports. my mistake. Anyway - did you do a real unrip or vertrep with a Sea King slinging the conex?
It's not that hard to offload cargo from on ship to another at sea, it's been done for hundreds of years.
True, naval vessels have been doing underway replenishments for years, but not with containers. Transferring cargo between two moving ships using lines and hoses is hard enough. Container ships don't have the cranes needed to move them, and it's a pretty precise operation even when the platforms are stable in port.
I think it is more likely that we humans adapt our lifestyles, we have done so in the past plenty of times, then try to find a replacement for the gasoline car that can slot in neatly without notice.
I agree, but history shows that we don't adapt until either a solution comes along that solves a problem with current solutions and/or is more convenient; or we are forced to change.
Perhaps something like high speed rail or similar for long distance travel, and renting a EV at the destination to get around the place.
Yes, it removes the freedom of just diving in the car and go. But then that only really came about with the car. Before then at best one could jump on a horse and ride out of there, and that was only really viable in places with a lot of open ground...
Which is the challenge - we enjoy the mobility the internal combustion engine offers. We really don't care about what powers the car, as long as it offers the performance - speed, range, cost that we want. EV's will eventually do that, IMHO.
So someone buys the legitimate app but for whatever reason installs the pirated one. Seems to me they may have liabled the purchaser; plus cost money if he or she is not on an unlimited message plan.
A lot of the reporting seems to focus on claim it would only go 55 miles.
A claim whose figure was from Tesla's staff. Should be interesting court.
Top Gear was spot on about the real world implications - refueling time is one area electrics need to improve to be viable replacements, as opposed to short trip around town, vehicles.
If they have the email address and name of the associated company, phishing attacks may just be one way to use it. The could conceivably attempt to reset passwords at sites that let you do that with a security question (unlikely, given the time and effort required) or attempt to combine that data with password info stolen from a major email program and then reset passwords and steal them.
The FA says Americans support a moratorium *IF* solar/wind can meet their energy needs. That's a long way from being against nuclear power.
How you ask the question is important. You might get different answers if you asked, instead:
Even if America faced a severe energy shortfall that other technologies can't make up, should we impose a moratorium on new nuclear plant construction?
While the survey sponsor may be non-partisan, that doesn't men they don't have an agenda. From their website it appears they are pushing solar/wind/renewable. It's important to have a diverse energy supply, and a reliable and secure one.
True or not, defending an industry which is widely perceived as being responsible for wholesale global economic collapse and that industry then having to go cap-in-hand to the taxpayer in many countries worldwide lest the problem get even worse (and getting away with it, largely because the average taxpayer cannot afford to see his bank go out of business) is really not going to win friends and influence people.
Who needs to win friends and influence people when you can buy them.
In fact it is. Do we want our "best engineering graduates" out of financial banks? Easy: pay them more than the banks.
Oh, but we don't want to do that!
That is the real issue - companies want the "best engineering graduates" on the cheap. Guess what - some are motivated by money, and go where it is. You want them, pay the market rate. The market rate, BTW, is not what other companies in your industry pay but what the grad can get at any company.
We should remember then it's a free market economy: you don't want "them" to tell you how do you have to live your life, then you can't tell "them" how should they have to live theirs.
Right now has been known that Moody's CEO has rised his salary this year almost 70%, well over 9 millions a year. And we allow for that. *That's* the problem.
If you believe in the first paragraph you no doubt see the irony in the second.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for leeches that were taking RedHat patches and rolling their own distributions without contributing enough back on their own.
I disagree with your application of the term leech here. There is no obligation to give back unless you modify the code. You may not like that business model but that does not make it wrong. The key is for people to support those who give back by buying their support offerings. One of the arguments we hear is "companies can make money off of support so" so giving their code away is not an issue. It appears there is a limit to that model when a big enough competitor decides to offer support without expending developer resources. So to me the issue is "how scalable is the OSS support model?" It may be self limiting because once the market is big enough the lower barriers to entry can attract significant competitors.
And what if they want to replace a broken node? No new units being sold today have OtherOS capability, so their cluster would gradually shrink in size until it became useless.
I'd be surpassed if Sony wasn't willing to work with them if they ran into that problem. Government contractors generally don't like to upset their major customer.
I'd be interested to see how they did the buy. If they went via and existing purchase vehicle the supplier probably has some pull with Sony or whomever they bought them from. They'd use that to get what they want.
Just because you can't buy one retail doesn't mean you can't get it via another channel.
I would worry more about Sony lawyers. They have got to be salivating at the Air Force's bankroll and trying to come up with a reason to sue.
I don't think you're kidding, but OMG, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. Seriously, unless they're delusional psychopaths[1], they're not salivating, they're shitting their pants at the thought of being sued by the Air Force. You don't sell something to the US government with certain advertised capabilities, then take away those capabilities, then sue the US government for using them. Instead, you get sued by the US government until you beg for mercy.
[1] This is a possibility.
No. You simply don't upgrade them to take away the capability.
If one broke I doubt they even bother to send it back. Just set it aside for parts. The time and effort to process a return is probably moor ethan it's worth.
Slashdot Mirror
GPLv2 didn't "Allow" what Tivo did, it overlooked it. Once Tivo Inc. showed GNU just how evil a corporation can be, they had to spend time and money creating GPLv3, time and money that could have been spent actually doing something, instead had to be spent on lawyering.
It's a license - if they didn't include specific restrictions or terms than it is allowable.
The broken window fallacy assumes there is other jobs to be had and other work to be done. But if nobody in the town is employed and there is no work to be done then breaking a few windows will re-distribute the wealth from the shop owner to the unemployed--who hopefully will spend it in the shop. The alternate is for the shop-owner to have food he bought from the robots while the rest of the townsfolk go hungry, or to tax the shop keeper and feed the hungry unemployed masses for doing nothing.
That's the problem with the broken window fallacy - it's so compelling to some because it creates the illusion of creating wealth; when all it does it inefficiently transfer resources back and forth. Some portion of the dollar the shopkeeper spends on the window goes to taxes (sales and income); so the glazer only gets a fraction of it. When he buys a loaf of bread from the shopkeeper, taxes again come out. So in essence all you've done is take some percentage of the money away for no real gain.
Personally I think a few inefficient and useless services are preferable to charity.
If they are useless and inefficient all they do is make the situation worse. Eventually, you've broken enough windows so nobody has enough money to fix them and everyone starves while shopkeepers cut themselves on the glass shards.
He's a politician, he says what benefits him the most in that moment.
Snip
But from the left, his policies are reactive rather than proactive. Proactive would be getting out in front and stopping things that stifle innovation, like hostile business environments. Instead, he wants us (if he could expand, I'd wager) to outlaw things and restrict things and tariff things after the fact.
Should we want to be one step ahead, or one step behind?
As you pointed out, he is a politician. As with all politicians, they are for anything that protects jobs in their district / state and against any that eliminate them. It's not a left or right thing.
That's why you have budget hawk Republicans defending (and taking) farm subsidies,; earmarks from both sides designed to funnel cash to the people back home; Democrats and Republicans rushing to bail out Detroit; and crying when their state didn't get a shuttle.
Many are all for competition and free enterprise until Schumpeter comes around.
One argument heard for using these calculators is: 'They are limited enough to use in exams.' Sounds sensible, but it raises the question: 'Why are we teaching a generation of students to use crippled technology?'"
The real question is - "Why aren't we teaching students to better understand by graphing themselves, rather than relying on a machine?"
Granted, it's a lot easier to use a machine to graph than going through the drudgery of drawing the graphs; but slogging through graphing is part of developing not just an understanding of the process, but a feel for the answer so you can recognize one that isn't right and look for your data entry errors.
I graded papers or engineering classes and would get (wrong) answers to 8 decimal points. After a while i felt like writing in big bold letters "DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS ANSWER? BECAUSE IF YOU DO YOU NEED TO FIND A DIFFERENT COURSE OF STUDY!!!!"
An important part of math is getting a feel for the answer and about what it should be so you can recognize the odd ones and look to see if you made a mistake. Technology, while grand, often acts as crutch and people blindly believe it.
Of course, there's nothing like a sales clerk getting a price of one cent after discount and proceeding to explain it must be right because the register said so. Or staring blankly at you after ringing up $10.00 for a $5.05 and you hand them a nickel and the insist they can take it and give you a $5 bill back "because the register thinks I put in a ten." Oh well....
NoW, GET OFF MY LAWN!
What economy of scale? Your dim little mind is aware that Apple is currently one of the largest if not the largest PC maker in the world right? They have even beaten Dell once (haven't checked if Dell or HP has taken the lead again).
So what economy of scale? Someone going to sell Mac clones so successfully they outperform the largest makers by such a magnitude they can demand even sharper prices then Apple already can?
Actually, in your haste to comeback with a witty put down (I'll grant you managed to be half way there) you failed to consider the PC market is much vaster than Apple alone. That's where the economies of scale come to play. Adding the ability to run OSX as well as Windows merely increases the number of units to amortize the HW development costs and increases the buy quantity.
While Apple is certainly large enough to command good prices, there are plenty of PC OEMS who build enough machines to get good prices as well; and they can spread engineering and developmental costs over a number of units beyond just those for one manufacturer. If Apple were to license their OS they'd have to make it work on generic MBs or provide the tools needed to adapt them to OSX (much as independent hackers did to create the Hackintosh). Imagine if Dell could load OSX on a $500 Insperion - the $900 Macbook looks real expensive; especially since Apple really sells the OS experience. If you can get that on a cheaper clone, even with a lower build quality, it becomes harder to justify buying Apple hardware. Once OSX is running on may cheap laptops and desktops Apple will come under significant pricing pressure (and have fewer units to amortize their costs as clones cut into their sales); as well as support issues as hardware combinations proliferate. Neither is in Apple's best interest; especially since they have managed to maintain premium pricing by avoiding becoming a commodity like PCs.
possibly higher perfuming machines.
Agreed. I'm tired of the Eu de Jobs scent, let's see something a little more Gatesian for a change.
Ah, the beauty of automatic correction and speel cheaking...
well apple can $100-$500 from there system price and still have nice systems. The mac pro should be $1500-$2000.
Why? They clearly sell well at the current prices, and if you assume all the price cuts came from margin Apple would need to increase sells dramatically (2x, 3x, 5x?) just to make the same profit at the reduced margin.
I have to agree with everyone that thinks the Woz wouldn't be a good fit for the current "Apple Way", since the man that was so devoted to the "User Experience" turned into the "Big Brother" that he railed against at the start, and now has his Users doing the "Lock Step" in chains!
Springtime for Apple and iOS
MacOS is happy and gay!
We're marching to one user interface
Look out, the iPhone is taking its place!
Springtime for Apple and iOS
The Valley's is our place once more!
Springtime for Apple and iOS
Watch out, Seattle
We're going for more!
The last time they licensed the operating system to non-Apple hardware it nearly killed the company.
It probably would be worse this time around since Apple now essentially uses industry standard hardware. Clone makers could take advantage of the economies of scale to introduce less expensive, and possibly higher perfuming, machines. They probably would not have quit the build quality of Apple but could get close enough that Apple would find it hard to maintain any significant price premium. OS sales probably wouldn't make up for the lost revenue to maintain development of OSX at its current level; so licensing it would make even less sense today.
In addition, Apple has been big on developing a closed, tightly integrated eco system - clones would threaten this as design proliferate and Apple can't be sure of what hardware the OS is using; making it harder to maintain that "power on and it works" design mantra.
Finally, they've been wildly successful to date and companies generally don't change when they are on a roll. That doesn't mean they'll still be around in 10 years but it is hard to argue against success.
Enterprise and DS9 both relied on serial plotlines. I didn't like the time-traveling alternate-future sparkly-people stuff in Enterprise, but I did like a lot of the one-off episodes. It was not shit.
My favorite was the Tholian Web episode "In a Mirror, Darkly;" they could have built a whole new series around that.
Wasnt Star Trek Enterprise the worst?
Also, as someone who started watching from TNG, would it be a good idea to watch TOS?
No, it was actually pretty good. As with any ST, it had really good episodes and really poor ones. I do think it had a lot of potential that was waited - the whole "we're the first explorers from Earth" could have been played up more rather than the time war; especially had they explored our first contact and relationship with other species prevalent in "later" series.
I've unreped conex containers many times. Container ships also happen to have cranes.
Yup - I forgot about the ones that pull into smaller non-container ports. my mistake. Anyway - did you do a real unrip or vertrep with a Sea King slinging the conex?
It's not that hard to offload cargo from on ship to another at sea, it's been done for hundreds of years.
True, naval vessels have been doing underway replenishments for years, but not with containers. Transferring cargo between two moving ships using lines and hoses is hard enough. Container ships don't have the cranes needed to move them, and it's a pretty precise operation even when the platforms are stable in port.
I think it is more likely that we humans adapt our lifestyles, we have done so in the past plenty of times, then try to find a replacement for the gasoline car that can slot in neatly without notice.
I agree, but history shows that we don't adapt until either a solution comes along that solves a problem with current solutions and/or is more convenient; or we are forced to change.
Perhaps something like high speed rail or similar for long distance travel, and renting a EV at the destination to get around the place.
Yes, it removes the freedom of just diving in the car and go. But then that only really came about with the car. Before then at best one could jump on a horse and ride out of there, and that was only really viable in places with a lot of open ground...
Which is the challenge - we enjoy the mobility the internal combustion engine offers. We really don't care about what powers the car, as long as it offers the performance - speed, range, cost that we want. EV's will eventually do that, IMHO.
So someone buys the legitimate app but for whatever reason installs the pirated one. Seems to me they may have liabled the purchaser; plus cost money if he or she is not on an unlimited message plan.
A lot of the reporting seems to focus on claim it would only go 55 miles.
A claim whose figure was from Tesla's staff. Should be interesting court.
Top Gear was spot on about the real world implications - refueling time is one area electrics need to improve to be viable replacements, as opposed to short trip around town, vehicles.
If they have the email address and name of the associated company, phishing attacks may just be one way to use it. The could conceivably attempt to reset passwords at sites that let you do that with a security question (unlikely, given the time and effort required) or attempt to combine that data with password info stolen from a major email program and then reset passwords and steal them.
Oh, the liar there is whoever named the department, not those who work there!
I guess you could say the same about marketing or any other department as well...
The FA says Americans support a moratorium *IF* solar/wind can meet their energy needs. That's a long way from being against nuclear power.
How you ask the question is important. You might get different answers if you asked, instead:
Even if America faced a severe energy shortfall that other technologies can't make up, should we impose a moratorium on new nuclear plant construction?
While the survey sponsor may be non-partisan, that doesn't men they don't have an agenda. From their website it appears they are pushing solar/wind/renewable. It's important to have a diverse energy supply, and a reliable and secure one.
True or not, defending an industry which is widely perceived as being responsible for wholesale global economic collapse and that industry then having to go cap-in-hand to the taxpayer in many countries worldwide lest the problem get even worse (and getting away with it, largely because the average taxpayer cannot afford to see his bank go out of business) is really not going to win friends and influence people.
Who needs to win friends and influence people when you can buy them.
"This is a completely ridiculous notion"
In fact it is. Do we want our "best engineering graduates" out of financial banks? Easy: pay them more than the banks.
Oh, but we don't want to do that!
That is the real issue - companies want the "best engineering graduates" on the cheap. Guess what - some are motivated by money, and go where it is. You want them, pay the market rate. The market rate, BTW, is not what other companies in your industry pay but what the grad can get at any company.
We should remember then it's a free market economy: you don't want "them" to tell you how do you have to live your life, then you can't tell "them" how should they have to live theirs.
Right now has been known that Moody's CEO has rised his salary this year almost 70%, well over 9 millions a year. And we allow for that. *That's* the problem.
If you believe in the first paragraph you no doubt see the irony in the second.
That should say screwing with customers.
Every business function (but IT) are professional liars.
You've obviously never called tech "support."
I have no sympathy whatsoever for leeches that were taking RedHat patches and rolling their own distributions without contributing enough back on their own.
I disagree with your application of the term leech here. There is no obligation to give back unless you modify the code. You may not like that business model but that does not make it wrong. The key is for people to support those who give back by buying their support offerings. One of the arguments we hear is "companies can make money off of support so" so giving their code away is not an issue. It appears there is a limit to that model when a big enough competitor decides to offer support without expending developer resources. So to me the issue is "how scalable is the OSS support model?" It may be self limiting because once the market is big enough the lower barriers to entry can attract significant competitors.
And what if they want to replace a broken node? No new units being sold today have OtherOS capability, so their cluster would gradually shrink in size until it became useless.
I'd be surpassed if Sony wasn't willing to work with them if they ran into that problem. Government contractors generally don't like to upset their major customer.
I'd be interested to see how they did the buy. If they went via and existing purchase vehicle the supplier probably has some pull with Sony or whomever they bought them from. They'd use that to get what they want.
Just because you can't buy one retail doesn't mean you can't get it via another channel.
I would worry more about Sony lawyers. They have got to be salivating at the Air Force's bankroll and trying to come up with a reason to sue.
I don't think you're kidding, but OMG, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. Seriously, unless they're delusional psychopaths[1], they're not salivating, they're shitting their pants at the thought of being sued by the Air Force. You don't sell something to the US government with certain advertised capabilities, then take away those capabilities, then sue the US government for using them. Instead, you get sued by the US government until you beg for mercy.
[1] This is a possibility.
No. You simply don't upgrade them to take away the capability.
If one broke I doubt they even bother to send it back. Just set it aside for parts. The time and effort to process a return is probably moor ethan it's worth.