The marketing exposure can be priceless (bandwagon effects, knowing the product exists, being familiar with a product/brand, etc.),
This is of course the real reason they are so up in arms about P2P, etc.: not that stuff they control is being distributed "by word of mouth" but that stuff they don't control will be. If a band can make it without ever signing with a label, if an independent film can reach the audience without a distributor, a lot of middle-meddlers are going to be very, very unemployed.
In "ye olden days" pirates were people who would go to great lengths, working against heavily armed opponents and risking incarceration or worse in order to obtain something that, nine times out of ten, wasn't worth having in the first place.
Thus their ledgendary rum consumption.
Now-a-days it's closer to ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but the principle is the same.
Honestly, could they come up with a worse name? (Well yeah, now that I think about it, I guess they could. But still.)
The names (downhill battle, save betamax, etc.) almost sound like they're trying to turn people off to their cause--which, by the way, I agree with. Why couldn't they call it "Fair use" or "Save our constitutional rights from corporate greed!" or something.
Even "File swappers for truth" or "ShareOn.org" (both of which suck) would be better names than what they're using.
You underestimate the power of word of mouth. This wouldn't nessecarily be a universal offer. Obviously there would be no website or central hotline. But start spreading the word in poor neighborhoods, and you'll find takers.
Of coarse whoever doing it would have to have minimal connections to whichever party they are supporting, as there would always be a risk of being caught.
Exactly the sort of situation in which a bounty "for information leading to arrest and conviction" could be very effective. Word of mouth is a double edged sword; big conspiracies just don't work.
You also rule out the possibility of an oppressive government. While it is currently exremely unlikely, there's always the possibility that some administration at some date would embark on a serious voter intimidation campaign, demanding to see voter receipts. Election regulations should always be written assuming that the worst is possible.
So it's better to have an oppressive government that can cook the books however it wants, without taking any publicly visible action? I think not. A voter intimidation campaign like you're suggesting would also create enourmous resentment.
Giving receipts out encourages vote buying - people standing on street corners promising $50 in exchange for a Bush receipt.
This is the worst argument against reciepts I've ever heard. Unfortunately, it is also the most common, and also the "offical" objection. Let's drive a stake through it right now, shall we?
On the one hand, if we give receipts, someone might buy some votes. Now, in order to have this effect the ellection, they have to let people know about it before they vote. Otherwise they are just paying people to vote for X when they would have (and did) vote for X anyway. They would just be wasting their money. Likewise, they'd have to let their offer to buy votes for X be known to people who wouldn't have otherwise voted for X--just telling the faithful doesn't help. And to make any difference they would have to tell a large enough number of people to swing the vote--and they don't know beforehand how close it will be, so they'll have to err on the side of "caution" and tell lots of people.
On the other hand, without receipts, an electronic election can by twisted any which way by just fudging the data in the system--with closed source software, this could be done by a single individual or a very small group of people, with no need to tell anyone who isn't already commited.
So, on the one hand, we have the possibility of a conspiracy that can only work if it is announced beforehand to a large number of people at least some of whom probably don't agree with its goals, and on the other hand the possibility of a conspiracy that can be carried out in secret by a very small group of insiders.
I say this because now the number of possible polynomials is an uncountable set so we run out of turing machines before we run out of roots(Cantor's Diagonalization) to be calculated.
I put Cantor's Diagonalization in the same basket as Euclid's Parallel Postulate: you can get results just as "valid" by accepting or rejecting it (but the two systems you get are not isomorphic at the fringes). The contrarian position is to assert that there is in fact an integer corresponding to every real number in the open interval 0 to 1; just "place a mirror" at the decimal point. Thus 0.5 maps to 5.0, and 0.123 maps to 321.0, and so forth. Of course, a repeating like 0.3333... maps to a "repeating integer" such as...33333.0 (and this is where most people cry foul and get off the bus). Likewise, Pi-3 maps to an infinite integer that ends in.....95141.
The catch is, it's very hard to come up with an a priori reason that this is unacceptable, while everything that Cantor did was kosher.
So far as I know, the situation is much like that with non-euclidian geometries; you might not like them but they are hard to "disprove" without at some point waving your hands and hoping your audience buys it.
You can solve them if you're prepared to write the roots in terms of elliptic functions, IIRC
You can do "better" than that. If you're prepared to write the roots in terms of logical functions, you can "solve" anything.
Want the roots of f(x) = 0?
They are
{All x : f(x)=0}
There are even computer implementations of this for limited cases (called "generate and test" algorithms). But I wouldn't advocate running big headlines claiming
Cranky/. poster solves everything!
-- MarkusQ
Re:The Libertarians are just as bad
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
I'd agree with you. My point was, a few years back (1999?) I gave up on the Libertarians after they outright stated that "Intellectual Property" was a natural right (as opposed to being a government created monopoly). I don't have all my bookmarks, but
this,
this,
and
this pretty much show the sort of thing I was running then (going back a few decades, see
"What is the Objectivist position in regard to patents and copyrights?" in the May 1964 issue of "The Objectivist Newsletter").
I especially disagree with their position on drug patents which (given how much of the actual research is paid for with tax dollars) is down right hypocritical.
...I have recently added two more administrators...
One perinial favorite is "perpetual hazing" of administrators (or sales droids, if your team is fortunate enough to have access to some). Nothing brings a team together like having a common interest in tormenting someone who isn't part of the team.
Be careful when setting bounds though. For example, back in the late 70's (before I knew better) one of my rules was
No live poultry
which seemed clear, simple, and to the point--until you realize that you're dealing with bright, highly competative people who deal with complext rule systems all day, and are trained to look for security holes. The revised version,
No live or recently live poultry
worked a little bit better, but (perhaps because they'd seen me flinch), the team realized that hazing your manager is even more fun than hazing sales droids. It took almost a month to get their focus back on the sales department where it belonged.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Important note: never haze anyone who makes your travel arrangements.
The Libertarians are just as bad
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
go vote Libertarian
The problem is, they were into the whole "IP is property" scam since day one (go read Atlas Shrugged for an early example). It used to figure more prominantly in their platform than it does at present, but it was one of the main reasons for my disenchantment with them (toning it down is good, repudiating it would be better).
The path they seem to be following (slowly) is the realization that "IP" is actually a government created monopoly, which they would on priciple oppose, rather than a natural property right, which they would on principle support.
You conveniently forgot to mention the millions of "Reagan Democrats" who are planning on pulling the lever for another Republican President, out of outrage at their party's choice to play political games with their national security. As much as the far left would like to paint Zell Miller as a crazed voice in the wilderness, he expresses the sentiments of many progressive Democrats who intend to put country before party.
Perhaps. But then you'd have to count all of us us true conservatives who are outraged at the abuse of the constitution and deeply held American prinicples (e.g. the separation of church and state, innocent until proven guilty, states rights, freedom of the press, freedom of association, "death before dishonor", etc.) by this "conservative" administration. Somehow "truth, justice and the American way" got replaced with "victory for our side at any cost" and I for one am not happy about it.
Not to mention what the fiscal conservatives have to say about him. As a Republican, I have to say that GWB has done more to damage my party than anyone since Nixon. I only wish the Democrats could have found someone to run against him.
Ignoring your whole "think of the children!" rant (and, frankly, while I'm not at all in favour of it as an industry, if my choices were starvation and prostitution I know which one I'd pick) you are still twisting things badly. For example:
While I believe that it is a transparent attempt to justify your greed. There is no reason (aside from PROFIT) why the US corporations could not provide the same level of worker and environmental protections in those countries that are required here.
My greed? I'm a worker in the very industry (IT) that everyone is screaming about offshoring. And guess what? I can't command the outragous sallery I was getting six years ago, but I'm willing to put up with a drop in income because in the long run I think everyone (not just Americans like me) will be better off. I support offshoring even though it has a negiative impact on me personally.
How exactly is this "greed"?
For your other point, it actually costs more to offshore, all other things being equal. The only reason it happens is that "all other things" aren't equal. Requiring that they be equal is an underhanded way of saying "offshoring should be prohibited" without being honest about your goals.
I 'd like to believe like you do that this money won't go into the pockets of the happy few only (10% world pop.) while the rest is put in slavery.
I'm not as optimistic as you, you shouldn't either.
Whoa! It's better to follow a course that is certain to put the money into the pockets of a happy few (US workers) than to follow a course that arguably might have the same effect, but just as arguably might not?
That's nuts! Are the labor unions hiring SCO to write their FUD for them? Next thing you'll be telling me is I should buy an American automobile because if I buy from the the Japanese they'll bomb Pearl Harbor again.
Check that. Look at the environmental protections and the employee protections of those countries. In most cases, the reason it is cheaper to send the work over seas is because they have fewer protections. Abusing your people is one way to achieve prosperity. But it is just a race to the bottom to see who can inflict the most abuse.
It might be abuse to migrate someone from US-standard-of-living (call it 10) to the outsource-worker-standard (call it 4), but what we are talking about is taking people who often are living well below the poverty line (1-2 on the same scale) and raising their livel of income to something that (while we might find it beneith our dignity to accept) is still far above what they could otherwise expect.
I supose you might think it less cruel to just let people starve instead of helping them earn enough money to buy food and clothing (but not iced-coffee-drinks and laptop computers). But I think it's a step in the right direction.
Instead, why not require that any country that we outsource to have the SAME level of protections that we do?
Because this is argument is just a protectionist strawman?
but it's very bad for 90% of the people affected. So, it's bad for the USA.
The problem here is that you're wrong. As others have mentioned, the "90% of the people" you are talking about is really something like
"90% of the Americans who happened to be working in that industry, for the company that outsourced, who lost their jobs (not including the ones who were quickly able to find better jobs) plus the fat cats we all love to hate"
As others have mentioned, the stockholders also benifit, as do the consumers (if the outsourcing is handled well) or their competitors (if it is handled badly).
But even more important, it benifits the economies of the countries to which the jobs are outsourced, and as a consequence benifits many people who just aren't americans but are nonetheless just as real as you are. This is where the real value of outsourcing starts. Every one of these people now has a personal vested interest in seeing the US stay healthy and strong, and interest in peace with the US instead of war....
For the last five decades or so our main export has been weapons and weapons-related aid. Guess what sort of interaction this fosters with the rest of the world?
Free trade (including outsourcing) may disrupt the status quo in complacent markets but it does far more good in the long run for both sides.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. This should not be read as support of GWB, even though it appears we happen to be on the same side of this particular issue. I still think he's a dangerous lunatic and wish they'd found someone to run against him.
I think he's just appealing to the groupthink mods.
Why not? It's only a little more draconian that the policy where I work. We can install IE ourselves provided we purchace a valid licence and do all the fussing to get it to work under wine ourselves. And the company won't support it, or pay for the time we waste dealing with it. But IE isn't actually prohibited.
Obviously it isn't but coal fired power plants don't leave huge uninhabitable dead zones like Chernoybl did and have the risk of killing large numbers of people all at once, or make people flee their homes...forever.
Now who's the ostritch? The fossil fuel industry routinely does just that, and has for decades.
Take
Centralia, Pennsylvania for just one example.
Not to mention all the deaths (mostly of children and the elderly) they cause. Rant FUD all you want, per-kilowatt atomic energy is far safer than fossil fuel.
-- MarkusQ
One good reason at least
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But that antipathy rose for a couple pretty good reasons.
One good reason at least: starting in the 1950's, the coal-and-oil industry put a fair amount of money into "public education" (FUD) to make sure we didn't shift to another source of power without understanding the impact on their bottom, er, no, I mean understanding the..., uh..., uderstanding the risks! Yeah, that's the ticket.
Risks! I say, Risks! This new thing is RISKY! We'd be all for it if it didn't make insects get real huge and glow and stuff. But since atomic energy is so RISKY we'd better stay with fossil fuels, shall we?
After all, burning coal and oil is perfectly safe!
The waste we are talking about is orders of magnitude worse.
Not the wastes I'm talking about. The actual wastes fall broadly into these categories:
Valuable materials that should be extracted
Very short half-life stuff that will be gone by the time we burry it
Contaminated rags and other junk that isn't very radioactive
Long half-life breakdown products that are very much like what we dug up in the first place
Many of the people who mined the Uranium to feed the U.S. weapons and nuclear energy program have died from the effects of long term radon exposure which often leads to lung cancer.
Still, for power generation, it's much safer than fosil fuels. You don't need to mine nearly as much of it, plus (as a consequence) it's worth more and easier to cost-justify safety equipment, etc. Just saying it's "dangerous" is disingenuous; the real question is, is it more or less dangerous than mining enough coal (for example) to produce the same amount of power.
For reasons other responders have clearly and concicely stated.
In my book, people who go on and on about the nuclear waste disposal "problem" are either flat-earth-level ludites or fosil fuel astro-turfers. I can understand a brief "but the waste problem!" post being a case of ignorance, but to go to such lengths to be wrong indicates a deeper problem.
There were radioactive materials burried near the earths surface long before we got here
There will be radioactive materials burried near the earth's surface long after we're gone
Mixing our waste material back with the mine tailing from which it was extracted and stuffing it back into the mines it came from, dropping it into subduction zones, etc. are all fine solutions
The inverse square law only applies if you are emitting in all directions.
No, it applies any time the diameter of the "beam" grows liniarly with the distance from the source. Buckshot in vacuum, for example, or a focused radio transmission. In practical terms, this means as long as the signal "speads out" at all (ignoring QM effects), you will see 1/r^2 dependence.
I've seen a lot of people say that as if it were accepted fact, but I don't recall ever seeing any proof.
SCO license purchases don't count.
I realise that Microsoft can't be unhappy about SCO's actions, but surely they have more productive things they could spend money on than funding a competitor's doomed legal adventures...
I've no idea why you think license purhaces don't count, since it's a pretty standard money laundering technique. But we've also learned that
Microsoft initiated the Baystar inventment and while they claimed that there was no financial involvement from Microsoft, a white paper on Baystar's own website lists
Micosoft and Vulcan ventures as two of their major investors. It has also come out that two of the other "licensees" (SUN & EV1) were influenced by Microsoft in their descision to purchase licenses (CA, the other major licensee, was given the license as part of a settlement agreement).
That pretty much covers all of SCO's funding in this venture. If you run down the standard checklist:
Microsoft has the means to fund SCO's FUD
Microsoft has the motive to fund SCO's FUD
Microsoft has the oportunity to fund SCO's FUD
To the extent that there is any evidence at all about the source of SCO's funding, in each case the ultimate source appears to be Microsoft.
That's why people seem to state it as an accepted fact; while it may not be proven it would certainly be the smart way to bet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is of course the real reason they are so up in arms about P2P, etc.: not that stuff they control is being distributed "by word of mouth" but that stuff they don't control will be. If a band can make it without ever signing with a label, if an independent film can reach the audience without a distributor, a lot of middle-meddlers are going to be very, very unemployed.
-- MarkusQ
In "ye olden days" pirates were people who would go to great lengths, working against heavily armed opponents and risking incarceration or worse in order to obtain something that, nine times out of ten, wasn't worth having in the first place.
Thus their ledgendary rum consumption.
Now-a-days it's closer to ninety-nine times out of a hundred, but the principle is the same.
-- MarkusQ
Honestly, could they come up with a worse name? (Well yeah, now that I think about it, I guess they could. But still.)
The names (downhill battle, save betamax, etc.) almost sound like they're trying to turn people off to their cause--which, by the way, I agree with. Why couldn't they call it "Fair use" or "Save our constitutional rights from corporate greed!" or something.
Even "File swappers for truth" or "ShareOn.org" (both of which suck) would be better names than what they're using.
-- MarkusQ
Exactly the sort of situation in which a bounty "for information leading to arrest and conviction" could be very effective. Word of mouth is a double edged sword; big conspiracies just don't work. So it's better to have an oppressive government that can cook the books however it wants, without taking any publicly visible action? I think not. A voter intimidation campaign like you're suggesting would also create enourmous resentment.
-- MarkusQ
This is the worst argument against reciepts I've ever heard. Unfortunately, it is also the most common, and also the "offical" objection. Let's drive a stake through it right now, shall we?
On the one hand, if we give receipts, someone might buy some votes. Now, in order to have this effect the ellection, they have to let people know about it before they vote. Otherwise they are just paying people to vote for X when they would have (and did) vote for X anyway. They would just be wasting their money. Likewise, they'd have to let their offer to buy votes for X be known to people who wouldn't have otherwise voted for X--just telling the faithful doesn't help. And to make any difference they would have to tell a large enough number of people to swing the vote--and they don't know beforehand how close it will be, so they'll have to err on the side of "caution" and tell lots of people.
On the other hand, without receipts, an electronic election can by twisted any which way by just fudging the data in the system--with closed source software, this could be done by a single individual or a very small group of people, with no need to tell anyone who isn't already commited.
So, on the one hand, we have the possibility of a conspiracy that can only work if it is announced beforehand to a large number of people at least some of whom probably don't agree with its goals, and on the other hand the possibility of a conspiracy that can be carried out in secret by a very small group of insiders.
Which would you be more worried about?
-- MarkusQ
N/T
Whenever I encounter a system that smells of dead meat I just wipe it & install linux.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. for the humour impared: this is a joke.
-- MarkusQ
I put Cantor's Diagonalization in the same basket as Euclid's Parallel Postulate: you can get results just as "valid" by accepting or rejecting it (but the two systems you get are not isomorphic at the fringes). The contrarian position is to assert that there is in fact an integer corresponding to every real number in the open interval 0 to 1; just "place a mirror" at the decimal point. Thus 0.5 maps to 5.0, and 0.123 maps to 321.0, and so forth. Of course, a repeating like 0.3333... maps to a "repeating integer" such as
The catch is, it's very hard to come up with an a priori reason that this is unacceptable, while everything that Cantor did was kosher.
So far as I know, the situation is much like that with non-euclidian geometries; you might not like them but they are hard to "disprove" without at some point waving your hands and hoping your audience buys it.
-- MarkusQ
You can do "better" than that. If you're prepared to write the roots in terms of logical functions, you can "solve" anything.
Want the roots of f(x) = 0?
They are
There are even computer implementations of this for limited cases (called "generate and test" algorithms). But I wouldn't advocate running big headlines claiming -- MarkusQI'd agree with you. My point was, a few years back (1999?) I gave up on the Libertarians after they outright stated that "Intellectual Property" was a natural right (as opposed to being a government created monopoly). I don't have all my bookmarks, but this, this, and this pretty much show the sort of thing I was running then (going back a few decades, see "What is the Objectivist position in regard to patents and copyrights?" in the May 1964 issue of "The Objectivist Newsletter").
I especially disagree with their position on drug patents which (given how much of the actual research is paid for with tax dollars) is down right hypocritical.
-- MarkusQ
One perinial favorite is "perpetual hazing" of administrators (or sales droids, if your team is fortunate enough to have access to some). Nothing brings a team together like having a common interest in tormenting someone who isn't part of the team.
Be careful when setting bounds though. For example, back in the late 70's (before I knew better) one of my rules was
which seemed clear, simple, and to the point--until you realize that you're dealing with bright, highly competative people who deal with complext rule systems all day, and are trained to look for security holes. The revised version, worked a little bit better, but (perhaps because they'd seen me flinch), the team realized that hazing your manager is even more fun than hazing sales droids. It took almost a month to get their focus back on the sales department where it belonged.-- MarkusQ
P.S. Important note: never haze anyone who makes your travel arrangements.
The problem is, they were into the whole "IP is property" scam since day one (go read Atlas Shrugged for an early example). It used to figure more prominantly in their platform than it does at present, but it was one of the main reasons for my disenchantment with them (toning it down is good, repudiating it would be better).
The path they seem to be following (slowly) is the realization that "IP" is actually a government created monopoly, which they would on priciple oppose, rather than a natural property right, which they would on principle support.
-- MarkusQ
Perhaps. But then you'd have to count all of us us true conservatives who are outraged at the abuse of the constitution and deeply held American prinicples (e.g. the separation of church and state, innocent until proven guilty, states rights, freedom of the press, freedom of association, "death before dishonor", etc.) by this "conservative" administration. Somehow "truth, justice and the American way" got replaced with "victory for our side at any cost" and I for one am not happy about it.
Not to mention what the fiscal conservatives have to say about him. As a Republican, I have to say that GWB has done more to damage my party than anyone since Nixon. I only wish the Democrats could have found someone to run against him.
-- MarkusQ
Ignoring your whole "think of the children!" rant (and, frankly, while I'm not at all in favour of it as an industry, if my choices were starvation and prostitution I know which one I'd pick) you are still twisting things badly. For example: My greed? I'm a worker in the very industry (IT) that everyone is screaming about offshoring. And guess what? I can't command the outragous sallery I was getting six years ago, but I'm willing to put up with a drop in income because in the long run I think everyone (not just Americans like me) will be better off. I support offshoring even though it has a negiative impact on me personally.
How exactly is this "greed"?
For your other point, it actually costs more to offshore, all other things being equal. The only reason it happens is that "all other things" aren't equal. Requiring that they be equal is an underhanded way of saying "offshoring should be prohibited" without being honest about your goals.
-- MarkusQ
Whoa! It's better to follow a course that is certain to put the money into the pockets of a happy few (US workers) than to follow a course that arguably might have the same effect, but just as arguably might not?
That's nuts! Are the labor unions hiring SCO to write their FUD for them? Next thing you'll be telling me is I should buy an American automobile because if I buy from the the Japanese they'll bomb Pearl Harbor again.
-- MarkusQ
It might be abuse to migrate someone from US-standard-of-living (call it 10) to the outsource-worker-standard (call it 4), but what we are talking about is taking people who often are living well below the poverty line (1-2 on the same scale) and raising their livel of income to something that (while we might find it beneith our dignity to accept) is still far above what they could otherwise expect.
I supose you might think it less cruel to just let people starve instead of helping them earn enough money to buy food and clothing (but not iced-coffee-drinks and laptop computers). But I think it's a step in the right direction.
Because this is argument is just a protectionist strawman?-- MarkusQ
The problem here is that you're wrong. As others have mentioned, the "90% of the people" you are talking about is really something like As others have mentioned, the stockholders also benifit, as do the consumers (if the outsourcing is handled well) or their competitors (if it is handled badly).
But even more important, it benifits the economies of the countries to which the jobs are outsourced, and as a consequence benifits many people who just aren't americans but are nonetheless just as real as you are. This is where the real value of outsourcing starts. Every one of these people now has a personal vested interest in seeing the US stay healthy and strong, and interest in peace with the US instead of war....
For the last five decades or so our main export has been weapons and weapons-related aid. Guess what sort of interaction this fosters with the rest of the world?
Free trade (including outsourcing) may disrupt the status quo in complacent markets but it does far more good in the long run for both sides.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. This should not be read as support of GWB, even though it appears we happen to be on the same side of this particular issue. I still think he's a dangerous lunatic and wish they'd found someone to run against him.
Why not? It's only a little more draconian that the policy where I work. We can install IE ourselves provided we purchace a valid licence and do all the fussing to get it to work under wine ourselves. And the company won't support it, or pay for the time we waste dealing with it. But IE isn't actually prohibited.
-- MarkusQ
Now who's the ostritch? The fossil fuel industry routinely does just that, and has for decades. Take Centralia, Pennsylvania for just one example. Not to mention all the deaths (mostly of children and the elderly) they cause. Rant FUD all you want, per-kilowatt atomic energy is far safer than fossil fuel.
-- MarkusQ
Risks! I say, Risks! This new thing is RISKY! We'd be all for it if it didn't make insects get real huge and glow and stuff. But since atomic energy is so RISKY we'd better stay with fossil fuels, shall we?
After all, burning coal and oil is perfectly safe!
-- MarkusQ
Not the wastes I'm talking about. The actual wastes fall broadly into these categories:
- Valuable materials that should be extracted
- Very short half-life stuff that will be gone by the time we burry it
- Contaminated rags and other junk that isn't very radioactive
- Long half-life breakdown products that are very much like what we dug up in the first place
Still, for power generation, it's much safer than fosil fuels. You don't need to mine nearly as much of it, plus (as a consequence) it's worth more and easier to cost-justify safety equipment, etc. Just saying it's "dangerous" is disingenuous; the real question is, is it more or less dangerous than mining enough coal (for example) to produce the same amount of power.-- MarkusQ
-5 Ludite on the MQR standard
For reasons other responders have clearly and concicely stated.
In my book, people who go on and on about the nuclear waste disposal "problem" are either flat-earth-level ludites or fosil fuel astro-turfers. I can understand a brief "but the waste problem!" post being a case of ignorance, but to go to such lengths to be wrong indicates a deeper problem.
Go peddle your pro-fosil-fuel FUD elsewhere.
-- MarkusQ
No, it applies any time the diameter of the "beam" grows liniarly with the distance from the source. Buckshot in vacuum, for example, or a focused radio transmission. In practical terms, this means as long as the signal "speads out" at all (ignoring QM effects), you will see 1/r^2 dependence.
-- MarkusQ
I've no idea why you think license purhaces don't count, since it's a pretty standard money laundering technique. But we've also learned that Microsoft initiated the Baystar inventment and while they claimed that there was no financial involvement from Microsoft, a white paper on Baystar's own website lists Micosoft and Vulcan ventures as two of their major investors. It has also come out that two of the other "licensees" (SUN & EV1) were influenced by Microsoft in their descision to purchase licenses (CA, the other major licensee, was given the license as part of a settlement agreement).
That pretty much covers all of SCO's funding in this venture. If you run down the standard checklist:
- Microsoft has the means to fund SCO's FUD
- Microsoft has the motive to fund SCO's FUD
- Microsoft has the oportunity to fund SCO's FUD
- To the extent that there is any evidence at all about the source of SCO's funding, in each case the ultimate source appears to be Microsoft.
That's why people seem to state it as an accepted fact; while it may not be proven it would certainly be the smart way to bet.-- MarkusQ